Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the human aspects of foot-and-mouth disease.
In reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett), on 27th January, 1967, I announced that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and I had asked Professor James Howie, Director of the Public Health Laboratory Service, and Professor Sir William Weipers, Director of Veterinary Education, University of Glasgow, to consider and report to us on whether the rare occurrence of a human case of foot-and-mouth disease presented any problems of diagnosis or necessitated any additional precautions to prevent spread of infection.
The Report has now been received and I have today placed a copy of it in the Library of the House. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking these two eminent gentlemen for their excellent work. The main conclusions of the Report are as follows:

(1) The patient concerned was infected with foot-and-mouth disease during the first week of his illness but was not so infected at any time thereafter.
(2) The patient was not infectious on 8th August, 1966, or on any subsequent date; in fact, the duration of infectivity must have been less than a week.
(3) Any connection between the patient's later illnesses and foot-and-mouth disease can be ruled out.
(4) The ordinary precautions under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950—which prohibit any person from entering or leaving an infected place except with a permit from an Inspector of my Department—seem entirely sufficient to cover any possibility of spread of infection to animals by human agency.

(5) No additional precautions are called for in the handling of foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks so far as concerns human beings who might be infected.
(6) Any regular and systematic search for suspected human cases would be difficult to carry out, would make an undue call on resources and could not be justified.
(7) The Ministry of Health should be notified if the virus of foot-and-mouth disease is isolated from a human patient or if a human infection by this virus is strongly suspected on good grounds. The important thing—as was done in this case—is to isolate the patient from contact with animals during the period when he is infectious.
The House will note that the Report endorses the action taken in this case, the effect of which was that during the whole period when he could have been a source of infection, the patient was either on the infected farm, from which all stock had been cleared by slaughter, or in hospital, so that any risk of animals being infected by him was removed. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is consulting the medical profession on the implementation of the Report's recommendation concerning notification to him of suspected or confirmed cases of foot-and-mouth disease in human beings and on the measures to be taken.

Mr. Stodart: May I express the regret of my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) for his inability to be here this morning? I thank the Minister and, of course, we will study the Report in the Library with care.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement gives rise not only to considerable interest but also to concern of a general nature as well as a particular concern for the gentleman who was so regrettably a victim of foot-and-mouth disease in Northumberland? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of a human being possibly a carrier of the disease. Will he deal with this point further? Can he tell us whether it is possible for one human being to infect another with this disease?
Secondly, if, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, the ordinary precautions are enough to cover any possibility of the spread of infection to animals by human agents, is he aware that, on 19th January, Mr. Brewis, the gentleman concerned, received a letter from his doctor which, I understand, told him that he must not come into contact with cattle for for an indefinite period and that, as a


result of the letter, Mr. Brewis's employers have had to terminate his employment with them? Can the right hon. Gentleman therefore allay the anxieties which have been aroused by the implications which undoubtedly lie behind the doctor's advice?
Finally, will the Minister reconsider the reply which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) on 18th January with regard to some compensatory payment being made in this case?

Mr. Peart: I note what the hon. Gentleman said about his right hon. Friend, and I understand the position.
The hon. Gentleman has rightly referred to some of the concern which has been aroused by this case. This is why I decided to have this independent inquiry by two very distinguished men, and they have gone into this matter with great care.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the disease can be spread by human beings. This is dealt with in the Report, and if the hon. Gentleman reads it he will find that Section 2 covers this point fully. The inquiry considered this matter carefully and took evidence about it. The Report says that there is no cause for alarm, and it adds:
These precautions seem to us to be entirely sufficient to cover the possibility of spread of infection to animals by human agency whether the human person involved is merely contaminated with virus or, as in the recent case, may be infected.
On the question of the advice given to Mr. Brewis, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Brewis's physician was in contact with our veterinary people, and every precaution was taken. This comes out very clearly in the Report. I was merely giving a concise summary of it.
I will certainly look into the question of compensation for Mr. Brewis. I believe that he has had a very difficult time. In fact, I was rather worried about the publicity given to the case. This has caused considerable concern to his doctor, who has made a public statement. I hope that no one will wish to embarrass Mr. Brewis. I did not want him to be embarrassed by setting up this inquiry, and this, too, comes out in the Report. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall carefully consider the question of compensation.

Mr. Stodart: The right hon. Gentleman said that the doctor in this case was in close touch with his officials. This must mean that the letter which the doctor wrote on 18th January advising Mr. Brewis that he must not be in touch with any cattle for an indefinite period was the advice given with the assent of the right hon. Gentleman's officials. It is difficult to understand how that ties in with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the ordinary precautions being all right. The implication must be that Mr. Brewis could cause harm if he were in contact with cattle.
If that is not the case, can the right hon. Gentleman say that the employers, who felt it necessary to terminate this gentlemen's employment, are able, in the light of what he has said, to ignore the advice given to them and to reinstate Mr. Brewis?

Mr. Peart: I have made inquiries about the letter. I have no knowledge of it, but I will check on this point. It is not for me to comment on the termination of this man's employment. I do not want to embarrass Mr. Brewis, but, as I say, I will consider his position about compensation.

Viscount Lambton: Is it possible, from the information in the Report, to say whether one man can give foot-and-mouth disease to another? If it is, is it not possible that Mr. Brewis quite unwittingly spread the disease when he was on the farm, and could have spread it to the cattle? We must not forget that foot-and-mouth disease was not diagnosed until after he had left the hospital. Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the simple question—is it possible for one man to give this disease to another?

Mr. Peart: I am making a statement, and giving a précis of the Report of two independent people who considered this matter. They came to the conclusion that it was very unlikely. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read the Report with care.

Mr. David Steel: With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's fifth point that no additional precautions are called for in the handling of foot-and-mouth disease, may I ask whether he is satisfied with the steps taken to seal off the


area in the south of Scotland in my constituency? I ask that because in the early stages of the outbreak there was real concern among farmers there that the warning notices issued by the police to keep people clear of the area were insufficient both in size and number, and in the early stages I had to make representations on this matter.

Mr. Peart: Once again I was stating what the Report said. I stressed the fact that the Report stated that no additional precautions were called for in the handling of foot-and-mouth disease in respect of human beings who might be infected. This was the conclusion after hearing evidence on the matter.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the unfortunate man has suffered more from the emotional and hysterical way in which this matter has been dealt with than from the disease itself? Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a freak case of a disease which, from a human point of view, is of very little clinical significance?

Mr. Peart: I think that my hon. Friend's latter comment and he is speaking as a medical practitioner as well as a Member of this House—confirms what has been said by those who produced this Report. I agree that Mr. Brewis has received undesirable publicity. I am glad that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) has been more tolerant this morning in the sense that he has not used extravagant language, but Dr. Armstrong, the doctor in this case, said that a lot of harm had been done to Mr. Brewis by the publicity which he had received, and he mentioned the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Kitson: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but does not this once again demonstrate the need to have better co-ordination between his Department and the Ministry of Health to examine the problems of animal diseases occurring in human beings? The incidence of brucellosis, salmonella typhimurium, anthrax, and now foot-and-mouth disease, make us feel that there is not enough liaison between his Department and the Ministry of Health. Will not

the right hon. Gentleman set up some kind of co-ordinating committee to look into this problem?

Mr. Peart: I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a great interest in animal diseases, especially brucellosis, but his question goes beyond this Report. I do not think one can say that there was a lack of co-ordination here. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is consulting the medical profession about the implementation of the recommendation in the Report with regard to the notification to him of suspected cases. My right hon. Friend will examine this, and we will have joint consultations. I am always willing to consider positive suggestions which will enable us to improve co-ordination between departments on the whole question of animal diseases, but in this instance the Report does not say that there was a lack of co-ordination.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the Minister give the number of recorded cases both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere of human beings who have contracted foot-and-mouth disease?

Mr. Peart: This is the only one that has been brought to my notice. I shall check on the numbers, but I do not think that there has been one that has received the full examination that this one has had.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: The odd thing about the Minister's statement is that it frequently referred to the possibility of infecting animals by human beings, but did not deal with the risk of infecting other human beings. We shall have to look at the Report with some care when it is placed in the Library. Then the Minister went on to indicate that the period of infection lasted only seven days. Is that the normal period or the result of treatment or a circumstance peculiar to this case?

Mr. Peart: This is what the scientists and the people who looked into the matter have said. I am a Minister and we are all politicians here. The Report was by two distinguished independent scientists, professional people who know a great deal about this and carefully looked at the evidence, and they have come to that conclusion.

Miss Quennell: While the Report does recommend that further steps should


be taken in dealing with outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, could the Minister indicate whether it is considered that in the rare and infrequent occasions where human contagion has occurred cottages occupied by the unfortunate victims should receive particular attention?

Mr. Peart: That was not mentioned by the Report. That is a difficult question. I am still considering other matters of a wider aspect. The Ministry examines how it can improve its methods in connection with any outbreak, and I shall make another announcement in the House about another matter involving other aspects of the problem. But I shall carefully look at the point raised by the hon. Lady.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Minister encourage further research into the whole relationship between animal diseases and human health, as some of us have a feeling that there is a close relationship in many of them, such as farmer's lung.

Mr. Peart: Obviously the people engaged in veterinary research will take note of that and the inquiry, which has focussed scientific attention as well as public attention on the problem, will be very useful. The problem is continually examined and our research on it is probably the best in the world.

Viscount Lambton: The Minister has chosen to say that I courted publicity. Is he aware that the only reason I did it was that he announced on 5th December that he did not intend to have an inquiry into the matter? Has not the inquiry which he was forced to have by publicity not justified the action I chose to take? Would the Minister answer another simple question? Was it possible—I do not say likely or unlikely—for Mr. Brewis to have infected any cattle during the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease?

Mr. Peart: I have given the answer. When it was felt that Mr. Brewis had the disease in the period mentioned in the Report, adequate precautions were taken. I merely said that Mr. Brewis's doctor accused the hon. Member on the question of publicity. If I quoted all that Dr. Armstrong said it would embarrass the noble Lord. He was accused of being callous and indulging in cheap publicity at the expense of Mr. Brewis,

who was a patient of Dr. Armstrong. That was said by the doctor, not me. The doctor has rebuked the hon. Member over and over again.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate an issue on a statement.

REFLECTIVE NUMBER PLATES

10.25 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow the use of reflective number plates on all road vehicles as an aid to road safety.
In 1966, 8,000 people were killed on the roads of this country, a further 100,000 were seriously injured and almost 300,000 were slightly injured. A total of 468,000 vehicles was involved in those accidents, and of the people killed or seriously injured almost 50 per cent. were either drivers or passengers in cars, taxis, vans and lorries. In 1966, fatal and serious casualties among drivers increased by 8·8 per cent. and in respect of their passengers by 9·3 per cent.
Apart from the personal tragedies and the grief those accidents caused, it has been calculated by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents that their cost in monetary terms in 1966 was no less than £267 million. Therefore, any measure designed to reduce the total number of accidents and keep death off our roads should receive the full and wholehearted support of all hon. Members, especially when the measure proposed in my Bill is as simple and cheap as a reflective registration or number plate.
Over one-third of all road accidents involving fatal or serious injuries happen in the hours of darkness, but as travel is much less during that period the accident rate in relation to vehicle-miles travelled is at least twice as great as during the hours of daylight. It is interesting to note that 47·2 per cent. of all road deaths occur at night.
A recent survey undertaken by the Automobile Association showed that over one-third of the vehicles in this country are inadequately lit at night. As we already have 14 million vehicles in


Britain this must mean that close on 5 million vehicles constitute a potential source of a road accident. The need for a full-proof warning of a vehicle with faulty lighting, or one that has been abandoned or badly parked becomes obvious.
In January this year the Road Research Laboratory issued Report No. 44 under the heading:
A road trial with reflectorised registration plates for motor vehicles".
In paragraph 2, on page 2, the Report states:
This Report describes a trial started early in 1964 with registration plates reflectorised with the material generally used for road traffic signs in the U.K. This material consists of spherical glass beads embedded within a transparent plastic having a smooth flat outer surface, and complies with the relevant requirements of B.S. 873–1959. It was accepted that at the outset such reflectorised plates are easier to read at night in the light of headlights and no more difficult to read by day than non-reflectorised plates.
The results of the trial are shown in Section 6 of the Report, where it is stated that, after two years and 80,000 miles of use on the roads, the average reduction in reflective power was 42 per cent., but that this was still 60 times brighter than white paint and that the reflective power of the plates could be restored to 80 to 90 per cent. of the original by polishing with car polish. I remind the House that 80,000 miles of motoring represents six to seven years' motoring for the average driver. In its conclusions, the Report states that evidence was obtained that the use of reflectorised registration plates might be expected to increase safety at night.
I would point out that since April, 1964, when the trial was first begun, over 22,000 people have been killed, over 250,000 seriously injured and in excess of three quarters of a million slightly injured on our roads. This is no time for delay or procrastination; it is time for action—now. The evidence is already known, and I can see no reason at all for further delay.
The advantages of the reflective plates are obvious, but I shall list them. They are:

(1) They are not dependent on their own lighting system. No battery, bulb, or wiring is required.

(2) They require little or no maintenance, except for an occasional wipe over for they are washed clean by the rain.
(3) Statistics can be produced to show that in the United States of America, where tests have been carried out in Minnesota, Maine, Illinois and Iowa, night-time accidents, especially rear end collisions, have been greatly reduced.
(4) If the plates were centrally positioned, they would give full warning of the approach of the "one-eyed monster", the vehicle with one front or one rear light out.
(5) They reflect at all angles, regardless of the position of the vehicle.
(6) They increase by five or six times the visibility distance of vehicles whose lights are switched off, or are not functioning and the legibility distance is increased by two or three times in the full beam of headlights.
(7) They are no dearer than the present type of plates and would cost about £2 per pair, which, according to the Road Research Laboratory report, in Section 7, is the cost of ordinary registration plates at present in use.
(8) None of the materials which would be used for the manufacture of the plates would have to be imported. They are available in this country, and would not cost either the Government or the motorist any more money than at present.
(9) They would be of a uniform size and shape and virtually indestructible.
(10) They would be a positive aid to police and to law enforcement. Mobile patrols would be able to read with much greater ease the number of an oncoming vehicle and similarly one that was going away from them.
Over 40 million vehicles in the world—25 per cent. of the total number will be equipped with these reflective plates by the end of 1967. This includes vehicles in 30 States in the United States of America, and in countries as far apart as Libya and Brazil. In France, permissive legislation was introduced in 1963 and the use of the plates is now compulsory for heavy goods vehicles. In a letter that I have had from the Minister of the Interior for Australia, it was stated that approval has been granted for their use in the Australian Capital Territory. The Tasmanian Government have also recommended their use.
I hope that we shall not delay any longer in Britain. All that is needed is a slight amendment to the lighting regulations now in operation to allow the use of a white or yellow reflecting plate on which the letters and numbers would appear in black. This again would be in line with the Road Research Laboratory Report No. 44, which, in its conclusions, states:
The use of yellow at the rear and white at the front might help to decide whether he vehicle is moving in the same or the opposite direction as oneself.
In support of my proposed Bill I call in aid the Automobile Association, the Royal Automobile Club, the International Federation of Senior Police officers and over 100 police forces in Britain, not to mention the 60 hon. Members representing all three parties in the House, who have signed Motion No. 460.
If the Bill receives the support that it should, and obtains a speedy passage through both Houses of Parliament, its provisions could be saving lives before the main holiday season commences, and certainly before the dark nights come again, when death on the roads of Britain, once more, unfortunately, will take its toll of men, women and children who might have lived if they had been in vehicles equipped with these reflective safety plates envisaged in my Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lomas, Mr. Oakes, Mr. Mawby, Mr. Ogden. Mr. Binns, Mr. Bessell, and Mr. Manuel.

REFLECTIVE NUMBER PLATES

Bill to allow the use of reflective number plates on all road vehicles as an aid to road safety, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 5th May, and to be printed. [Bill No. 236.]

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE (DATA PROCESSING SERVICE) BILL

10.25 a.m.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It must be very rare for a Minister to be moving the Second Reading of two important Bills on two consecutive days. It is a measure of the vigour and energy with which the present Government are fulfilling their General Election pledges.
This is a very important Bill in that it establishes an infrastructure for the economy. It is a simple enabling Bill, and has only two Clauses. The first adds functions relating to
the provision of services and facilities for the processing of data by computer
to the functions in Section 1 (3,b) of the Post Office Act, 1961, for which payment may be made out of the Post Office Fund. The second gives the Short Title, and extends the effect of the Bill expressly to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, and by implication to Northern Ireland.
There is also an express provision that the Bill shall not extend the meaning of the words "the postal service" in the Government of Ireland Act. It will be remembered that the postal service is one of the "reserved matters" in Northern Ireland, in respect of which only the United Kingdom Parliament has power to legislate. The Northern Ireland Parliament thus clearly retains its power to legislate in respect of data processing.
We shall lay ourselves out to provide any data processing service for which there is a customer with whom we can come to terms. At present, we contemplate the following range of services:

(i) Provision of computer time;
(ii) Provision of data preparation and input facilities;
(iii) Systems analysis service;
(iv) Programming service;
(v) Facilities for computer to "talk" to computer;


(vi) "Desk top" computer facilities for individuals;
(vii) Facilities for the establishment of "data banks".
The House will probably not require further elaboration from me of the first five of these items, although I would like to add that the Post Office has already taken a lead in this country in adopting the most modern form of data input—the direct machine reading of documents printed in what is known as the Optical "B" fount, a type face which I am sure will be universally acceptable for all purposes.
We have also a research and development project for a cheap machine which can be used to mechanise clerical processes at the point where a transaction takes place—for example, at a sales or cash receiving counter—automatically recording as a by-product the data necessary for subsequent computer operation. This project is in an advanced stage.
In the "desk top" scheme, individual computer facilities can be provided for particular people in a firm, for example, scientists, engineers or designers. By means of terminal equipment, located in his office, and connected by wire to a remote computer, the engineer can have all the facilities of the network at his disposal, paying only for what he uses.
The "data bank" is a file of information which is permanently held in a computer in a manner in which it is immediately available. An example might be a standing file of data or design information, maintained on one of our computers by the appropriate trade or professional body.
This, by means of the desk top facility I have just mentioned, would be available to individuals on a nation-wide basis. The inquirer would put his question from his office machine, the data, formulae, etc., would be extracted from the file, any necessary calculations done by the computer, and the result pasted back to him in his office.
The Post Office is already a big user of computers for its internal purposes, and has already a large supporting force of systems analysts and programmers. By 1971, we plan to have 20 large modern computers installed up and down the country, which will be connected together

by data transmission links to form a single system.
By increasing the size of this network and making its facilities available to the nation as a whole we shall establish a co-ordinated framework which can be developed into a national computer grid. We believe that we shall be the first country in the world to do this and I think that the resultant "know-how" could well have export benefits.
As I said in my statement to the House on 6th April, the Post Office would not have, or seek, a monopoly of computer bureau services. The Post Office's function of transmitting data, as the national supplier of telecommunications is, of course, a quite separate matter.
Our bureau services would be offered on a wholly commercial basis; indeed, we would be prepared to make any of these services available to private computer bureaux or other private computer users. There is no intention of regarding the public side of this business as a marginal activity on Post Office computing. This means that charges to public users will fairly reflect their share of the total overheads. I want to make that clear. I am confident that the Post Office could successfully operate a data processing service on this basis.
There are many problems of detail planning—including the exact nature of public demand—the solution of which requires the spending of money and which I therefore cannot commission until I have the powers asked for in the Bill. Some of the more sophisticated services I have described also pose not inconsiderable technical problems, the solution of which will take time.
As soon as the Bill becomes law, however, we shall be in a position to sell computer time on a permanent basis and to provide data preparation services. We shall then have installations in London, Portsmouth, Derby, Lytham St. Annes and Edinburgh and we could comparatively easily considerably expand our equipment capacity if required.
There is a national shortage of systems analyst and programmer staff. We think that the National Data Processing Service will offer an attractive career in computing to the young entrant and we aim to make a contribution towards overcoming this national shortage by recruiting and


training many of our own staff. We are aiming at recruiting and training 100 a year and until this staff comes forward, or we are able to release staff from our own projects, our systems analyst and programmer services are bound to be limited.
We are, however, working very closely with the National Computing Centre and we think that the work they are doing on standardising systems and developing programme packages will be of tremendous value in coping with this lack of skilled manpower. We shall not hesitate to use the services of existing analyst and programmer organisations or to purchase or rent existing programmes wherever appropriate to meet the needs of our customers. This shortage of adequately trained and experienced staff is likely, however, to be the most substantial brake on our progress in the first two or three years. We are prepared for this.
We shall, of course, do everything we can to develop the National Data Processing Service as quickly as possible and I think that three or four years should see us well into our stride with the whole range of our services. This is above all a growth project and the immediate task is to get it moving in the right direction.
Because we start off with the very considerable base load of Post Office work, "starting up" costs for the new service will be comparatively small and most of the cost attributable to the public service will be directly related to the demand. We think that on account of the National Data Processing Service we might spend about £9 million more on staff and equipment over the first five years than we should have done on purely Post Office requirements during the same period. But what is actually spent on public account will be quite closely related to public demand.
I have differentiated between public account and Post Office account only to give the House some idea of cost. There will, of course, only be one service and I would like to reiterate the point I made earlier that all users of the service, be they Post Office, Government Departments, or members of the public, will pay rates calculated on exactly the same basis. Needless to say, this service will be operated on the same financial basis as the others we provide. It must make a

profit each year and generate its contribution to capital requirements of the Post Office.
As I have said, we have not yet been able to study likely demand in complete detail and this is, of course, one of our priority tasks. We shall be pleased to talk to anyone who thinks that we may help. We should expect the service to be attractive to potential users who have not a sufficient volume of work fully to load a machine, who want facilities which can be had only from powerful and therefore expensive machines, or who do not wish to be troubled with the mechanics of computer operation and management which is a specialised activity.
These could include public bodies such as local authorities, the technical colleges, the regional hospital boards, as well as smaller commercial firms. They would pay only for the time they use. I should perhaps say that it is not proposed to interfere with the programme for university computers, but the national service may offer a useful supplement. Users who already have some experience of computing and who are considering extension or replacement of their present plant may find the equipment and "back up" facilities offered by a multi-computer service attractive and I would like to say that if we can come to terms we would be prepared to consider siting new installations to suit large customer needs.
When we are in a position to offer the "desk top" and "data bank" facilities, I would expect the nation wide character of these to have a great appeal in a wide variety of specialised applications, science, engineering design and information retrieval for a variety of commercial applications. We shall be very pleased to hear from learned societies or private enterprise in this connection.
The creation of a National Data Processing Service is a very large undertaking and I think growth and development will go on for a long time. Our initial sales and educational effort will probably almost certainly be selective. We shall probably select and develop particular ranges of activity and then market the solutions as hard as we can over the whole country.
The Post Office has already a high reputation for confidentiality and this reputation the new Corporation will be jealous to preserve. There would be a further insurance whereby access to information in the system could be had only by a customer in possession of the appropriate key code, the use of which could be further restricted to previously designated access points. So there need be no fear on the part of the customer about the confidentiality aspect.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My right hon. Friend refers to larger consumer needs. Can he give some indication of the minimum size he is thinking of? For example, is it a factory of 5,000 or 10,000 people?

Mr. Short: At the moment, I am talking about confidentiality. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology can deal with that point in more detail. What I am saying now is that, in view of our long reputation for confidentiality and of the new safeguards there is no need for any fear on this score.
But, of course, information held in electronic form is safer against commercial espionage, which is becoming one of the curses of the modern world, than that held in document form and whilst, taking the maximum precautions against such events, re-creation of records damaged by fire or other accident would be guaranteed.
The most immediate benefit of such a service is that the economies of scale which are possible will put computing facilities within the reach of a very large part of the business and industrial communities at attractive rates with considerable benefit to their efficiency. The "desk top" and "data bank" facilities will increase the efficiency and speed with which design work can be done and hence improve the date by which the product can be delivered.
But in the not too distant future, the greatest benefit of all may well be found to lie in the overall rationalisation of methods which the computer grid will make possible. For example, it will no longer be necessary for two firms using computers with access to the grid to send each other paper on routine business. Orders and requests for payments, order-

ing and despatching goods, inquiries for goods and services, etc., will all be able to be done by computer "talking" to computer. An early Post Office example of this will be the computers preparing telephone accounts talking to the computers operating the giro service in those cases where the subscriber wishes to pay his telephone bill by giro transfer.
This is a very important part of the Government's efforts to modernise the economy and I hope that the House will give me the powers I am seeking and the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.

10.50 a.m.

Mr. David Price: This Bill is in itself modest and neutral. In this day and age it is difficult to take exception to the Post Office asking for the right to provide
services and facilities for the processing of data by computer.
But it all depends on how this apparently modest intention is interpreted by the Post Office. Until the Postmaster-General's speech, I felt that it was rather like buying a ticket on a mystery tour: we did not know where we were going. We were grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what I might term his First Reading statement on 6th April. But, even after his speech today, we should have preferred a White Paper, which spelt out his intentions in detail. The matters into which the right hon. Gentleman went this morning do not lend themselves well to general debate. They are far better discussed in Committee where visual aids and the like are possible.
However, it is clear from the Postmaster-General's statement on 6th April, and certainly from what he said today, that, although the Bill may be a mouse, there are very considerable implications in letting this mouse loose among us. There are still many unanswered questions on which the wording of the Bill is entirely unproductive. It is, therefore, still difficult for us to assess the real consequences of what the right hon. Gentleman is asking us to do.
I should like briefly to go through a number of stages in examining these propositions. The Post Office has about £4 million worth of computers in current use. We are told that by 1971 it aims to have 20 large modern computers in


use, although we have been given no estimate of the value.
On 6th April, my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) asked this very proper supplementary question:
Is one of the reasons why he"—
that is, the Postmaster-General—
has had to make his statement today that the Post Office has over-committed itself in computer investment only to find that it cannot make full use of the investment already committed?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April. 1967; Vol. 744, c. 468.]
The only reply which that question evoked from the Postmaster-General was that my hon. Friend had not been listening to the statement. It was a very proper question to ask.
We got the real reply on 13th April in answer to a Written Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). I should like to quote part of the Postmaster-General's reply:
The loading of computers is a continuous process and the total load is redeployed between machines as required. The total load is currently about 50 per cent. and increasing."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 13th April. 1967; Vol. 744, c. 225.]
I go back to the questions which I asked the Postmaster-General when he made his statement, namely, over how many years does he aim to depreciate his computers—the ones in current use and the 20 more which he intends to buy? What rate of D.C.F. is he using? I understand from the reply which I had from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a few months ago that all Government Departments are using the D.C.F. approach to their investment appraisals. I await an answer. We are entitled to be solicitous of the return on public investment, and we have not had an answer to that.
I assure the House that nobody is keener than I on the use of computers when they make economic sense. They have immense potential. But they should not be introduced simply as political gimmicks or, as is the case with some firms, to keep up with the technological Jones's.
I draw attention to a recent article in British Industry by Mr. Frank Warner, managing director of Urwick Diebold Ltd., which is probably the largest firm of independent consultants in this field. Mr. Warner said this:

Many installations have achieved savings only remotely related to their overall costs. In others, the costs are not even known. Improved management control is often claimed, but unless specific improvements in management performance can be demonstrated, such a claim is unverifiable.
Later, he said:
This is not a uniquely British problem. In the U.S.A., current surveys reveal that some 40 per cent. of computer installations fail to pay their way. Our own estimates, however, suggest that in the United Kingdom the percentage of unprofitable computers may be as high as 75 to 80 per cent. If this is so, computers are at present a drag on the national economy.
This problem is particularly real in a public monopoly, because it does not have to justify its investment programme by the acid test of the market. This is one of the unsolved problems of public affairs. Neither side of the House knows the real solution to it.
Are the 20 large modern computers which the Post Office is to have by 1971 justified or not? I simply do not know, and I suspect that, with respect, the Postmaster-General does not know. Therefore, I should like to see the economic justification for them at least expressed in D.C.F. terms. I revert to my earlier questions: over how many years are the Post Office computers to be depreciated; and what discount factor does the Post Office use in its investment appraisals?
I turn to the Postmaster-General's proposal to offer computer services to the public. In so far as the Post Office has spare capacity on its current computers or future computers, I should not take the least exception to its hiring out their surplus time. Its prior market should be other Government Departments, because they all lie within the sphere of public investment. I welcome what the Postmaster-General said, namely, that he will encourage both Government Departments and local authorities to make use of the facilities which the Post Office will have available.
So far as the Bill is necessary to make that possible, I welcome it. But when the Postmaster-General goes beyond that limited proposition, we are dealing with something of a different order, I suspect that most Members do not realise the significance of what the right hon. Gentleman has told us today. On 6th April he spoke about the early installation by


the Post Office of a full national service. Today, he told us more about how he conceives that national service. This raises the question of what proportion of his 20 large computers to be obtained by 1971 is to fulfil this new rôle and how far they are to fulfil what I might call the internal rôle of the Post Office—the Giro, and so on. I suspect that it is a fair proportion.
I should say a word or two about our views on computer grids. The House will agree, I think, that the predominant factor in leading us to think in terms of computer grids—the right hon. Gentleman's national service—is the progress made in the speed of central processing. If we conceive of a computer system as a complex of information processing units and of communications links, we see in the present state of the art that the bottleneck is no longer in processing the information but in getting the information to and from the system.
The obvious way of matching input—output speed to processing speed is to allow many users to share the computer. This takes us straight to concepts of time-sharing on computer grids. These concepts have been talked and written about in the technical Press with considerable intellectual conviction. But few, if any, systems have been established as yet. I suppose that the banks and the Post Office are the nearest to putting the theoretical concept into practice, but so far these have been internal grids. To my mind, there lies a very big difference.
The most successful example of a computer grid that I know of is the internal grid at the M.I.T. As the House knows, at the M.I.T. there are now some 160 stations, each with a teletype-writer which links the user direct with the central computer.
Undoubtedly, there are immense potentials in such systems. But, in relation to the Post Office's rôle in such systems, I suggest to the Postmaster-General and the House that the first priority of the Post Office is to provide the line to all users at reasonable commercial rates and to take every advantage to develop the technological potentials of the telecommunications side of a time-sharing computer system to the full. No one else can provide the line, be-

cause the Post Office has a monopoly of the lines. This is where Britain differs from the United States of America. This is the unique responsibility which falls upon the Postmaster-General. I believe that the monopoly position of the Post Office is determining in these matters.
That is why, at this stage in the development of the computer art, I have grave doubts about the Post Office involving itself in the provision of national computer grids. I believe that the Post Office should concentrate its endeavours on providing technically improved and commercially cheaper telecommunications services. This is not only a personal objection to the further invasion of the private sector by the public. It is also a matter of priorities. Until the Post Office improves the telecommunications system of the country, it had better not try to run computer grids.
Mr. Speaker, you and I know how difficult it is to get a line between Southampton and London on the ordinary telephone during office hours. I should prefer to see the Post Office concentrating its efforts upon meeting better the ever-increasing demand for traditional telecommunications services before embarking upon a full national computer service on its own. The Postmaster-General should remember the warning of Pliny:
The cobbler should not go beyond his last.
Let me make it clear to the House that the Post Office has a long way to go before it has fulfilled its side of the bargain—the telecommunications side, the monopoly side.
I should like to develop for a moment some of my ideas of the sort of scope open to the Post Office to develop on the telecommunications side. They are very exciting.
In theory, there is a case for saying that the Post Office should develop a communications network transmitting digital signals exclusively. Voice could be converted to and from digital form at telephone exchanges. Digital signals could then be used in terminal equipment and throughout the switching apparatus. About 64,000 binary pulses per second will provide a telephone circuit. The micro-electronic revolution makes such a system theoretically economic. In the present state of the art, it


would be possible to construct a network economically and make equipment which would do any of the following things.
First, it could transmit pulses over a single pair of wires at rates up to 6 million bits per second. Second, it could transmit pulses through a coaxial channel at 300 million bits a second and, if one went as high as a 20-unit coaxial cable, one could get up to a capacity of 3,000 million bits per second each way. Third, it could transmit 6,000 million bits per second each way through a two-inch wire guide by means of radio waves whose wavelength is measured in millimeters—the Maser principle. Finally, it could transmit 6,000 million bits per second by means of an orbital satellite. I should like to know what is the Post Office's thinking on these prospects.
I put it to the Postmaster-General that, if he wishes to think big and technologically ambitiously, let him think in terms of placing a satellite in synchronous orbit Over this country to combine a national television system which would be infinitely better in the long run than what we shall have to do on colour, and a new digital system. If the Post Office takes on that one, it will have its hands full without trying to embark on a full computer system, and it is in these terms that the Post Office should be thinking.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the independent computer bureaux are very concerned at his declared intention to develop a full national service as quickly as possible. Because of his monopoly of the line, he has a giant's strength. Let him be cautious how he uses it, because he will recall what Shakespeare had to say on such matters:
…It is excellent
To have a giant's strength, but it is tyrannous
To use it like a giant.
If the right hon. Gentleman uses his monopoly strength like a giant, he will crush the private operator. Through his monopoly of the line, in effect he will nationalise the major computer services of the country. I have no doubt that he will protest his innocence of such black purposes, but I assure him that I am not inventing these fears. If he looks at the current number of Computer Weekly, he will find this comment upon his proposals of 6th April:

…the retaining under Post Office control of inter-connected routes, however, will make it very difficult for any other network to be established economically.
The Postmaster-General told us today that he does not want a monopoly, but there are strong monopolistic tendencies in what he proposes because of his monopoly of the line. He says that he wishes to offer this service on a wholly commercial basis, and we were delighted to hear that all users will pay the same rate, whether they are internal within the Post Office, Government Departments or private users. At some stage, I should like to go into that in more detail, because we know from our own business experience that the costing of products and services is not a simple matter of blacks and whites. Above all, in a capital intensive activity like this, the question of over how long and at what rate one depreciates one's investment can be all determining in one's charges.
Then there is the issue of small computers versus large ones. I do not want to go into that today, but I express a personal view that, for a large number of reasons, social as well as economic and technical, over the next few years we shall see a big increase in computer capacity through the purchase and use of small computers. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary wrote with great feeling about large computers before he went to his present office, but I have a sneaking feeling that it is the small computers which will appeal to organisations in this country.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the national shortage of computer staff. He said that he needs to recruit 100 a year. I assume that those will be systems analysts and not programmers and operators. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to comment on the Post Office's needs for computing staff and whether they were taken into account when the Inter-departmental Working Group produced its Report earlier this year on Computer Education. I should tell the House that I have a good deal of evidence from outside that the premise upon which that Report was based underestimated the likely computer usage by 1970.
The authors of the Report were talking in terms of 3,000 computers by 1970. The figure which I have had quoted to me from the computer industry is at least


5,000. I am not in a position to know who is right but, clearly, if 5,000 is the right figure, there is a considerable underestimate in the number of systems designers, systems analysts, programmers and so forth whom we shall need. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether the Post Office's needs have been taken into account in that estimate.
I want now to make a brief mention of certain problems which will arise in the establishment of the proposed national service. I am sure that the House will agree that what the Postmaster-General is proposing will accelerate the introduction of a common interface in software. I agree with the view, as I am sure the Postmaster-General does, that the absence of such a standard has been an important factor in holding back the wider use of electronic data transmission in this country. Clearly, the standard adopted by the Post Office will have a determining influence in setting a standard for the country. I do not object to this in the least, provided the standard is set by the Government as a whole, and not simply by the Post Office acting on its own.
On many occasions I have declared my view that in this technological age the Government have a duty to act as an active catalyst to promote technological development, and part of that catalytic function is to lay down technical standards where appropriate. Therefore, I would encourage the Government to settle standards for a common interface for softwear, provided, first, that they are satisfied that the state of the art is sufficiently developed to allow such standards to be determined, and, secondly, that this is done in consultation with industry and operators outside. I invite the hon. Gentleman to comment on this.
I should also like the hon. Gentleman's assurance that in determining the standard the Postmaster-General and the Government will not be too xenophobic in their approach. Computer technology is international. The pace of development is set internationally, not nationally, and therefore I put it to the House that we must think internationally rather than nationally in setting our standards. Let the Government beware that in settling computer standards they do not determine that we should drive on the left

of the road when the remainder of the world is driving on the right.
The same applies within that broad context to the question of computer language. As we know, a number of languages have been developed and are in present use, largely directed towards different user needs, scientific, commercial, and so on, and the stage has been reached when people are talking about a common language which is applicable to all the different usages.
We know that I.B.M. has produced a new language called P.L.1 which is held to meet the needs of all users. It is not for me to go into a long discussion of its merits or demerits, but rather again to ask the Government for an assurance that they will not reject it on xenophobic grounds, because my guess is that through the world power of I.B.M. it is likely, whether we want it or not, that P.L.1 will become the common computer language of the world. Therefore, in deciding which side of the road we are to drive on, let us determine that we drive on the same side of the road as the other major countries in the world.
My final point is that at the end of his speech the Postmaster-General made some reference to the problem of secrecy and confidentiality in such a system. I am glad he did, because this is going to be an increasing problem. One has to consider not only the question of secrecy, but the whole social consequences of the sort of system about which the right hon. Gentleman is talking.
In a recent article in the Scientific American the authors said:
It is already apparent that, because such a system binds the members of a community more closely together, many of the problems will be ethical ones. The current problem of wire-tapping suggests the seriousness with which we must consider the security of a system that may hold in its mass memory detailed information on individuals and organisations. How will access to the utility be controlled? Who will regulate its use? To what ends will the system be devoted, and what safeguards can be devised to prevent its misuse?
I think that the author has put the problem very clearly and succinctly. They are not in themselves reasons for opposing computer grids, but they are questions which must be answered. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow us to share further in his thoughts on these matters, because they are real


ones. I am not saying this in any partisan sense. People fear that computer grids, with very much larger units and systems, may lead to the establishment of "Big Brother". I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises this, and I assure him that these are real fears.

Mr. Edward Short: I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that this is one of the most important problems facing society today. I agree that there is a big ethical element in it. I would be happy to discuss this privately with the hon. Gentleman, and also for my officials to discuss it with him.

Mr. Price: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that generous offer. In identifying these problems, I make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that I do not think I have the answer to them. In this sphere it is much more sensible to have a public discussion on the basis of all acting through common ignorance, rather than from common deceit and thinking that because we have identified the problems we know the answers.
I apologise for detaining the House, hut this is an extremely important matter. I have a rather Irish feeling about the Bill. I am not opposed to it in the least—in fact I welcome the interest which the Postmaster-General is taking in computers—but I am unhappy about it be-because I have a large number of questions as yet unanswered.

11.16 a. m.

Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price). He made a very thoughtful speech, to which I am sure everyone listened with great interest. I thought that he emphasised very clearly the difficulties which he found in accepting the Bill. I want to take up one or two things that he said which seem to be central to his argument, because I think that we can dispense with them reasonably quickly, if that is acceptable to the hon. Gentleman.
First, he talked about the monopoly of the Post Office. I know that he was speaking particularly about the monopoly which the Post Office has of lines. Therefore, there arises the question of potential users getting into the system now

proposed in the Bill. I think that this will be met by some of the things that my right hon. Friend said in reply to questions following his statement on 6th April.
In answer to a question which I asked about private bureau operators, my right hon. Friend said:
The private bureau operators will be able to purchase our facilities. They will have to pay for them, but we shall make our transmission lines and all our facilities available to them if they wish to use them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1967; Vol. 744, c. 468.]
The significant point there is that my right hon. Friend is giving as clear an assurance as he can that he will make transmission lines available to private bureau operators, in addition to anybody else who wants to use the system as it is.
I thought that my right hon. Friend's statement was very clear on the issue of confidentiality, which the hon. Gentleman raised. We may not know the answer to some of the questions which the hon. Gentleman posed, but I think that the setting up of this system will give us more opportunities to see what can be done in the way of curtailing economic espionage than we have had up to now. This does not mean making use of the Post Office "Big Brother" technique, but merely fitting into the lines and at all levels in the system suitable devices which will make the system secure. This is a matter of technology. It is much easier to deal with than it has been in the past, with the existing system of dispersing information or trying not to disperse it between private companies whether large or small.
I think that the principal difficulty of the Post Office in going along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman is that of making use of the equipment in other fields to start with. The hon. Gentleman mentioned micro-electronics and the way in which telecommunications could be developed. The principal difficulty here is that supply from the contractors is very small indeed. As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, there are hundreds of contracts now outstanding on normal equipment to the Post Office on telecommunications matters. I think that the last figure was about 900. This is rather a lot. Let us make sure that our present contracts are fulfilled


before we get into new ones. It is therefore sensible of the Postmaster-General to recognise that he has at present about 40 to 50 per cent. of surplus computer capacity he can offer to industry.
If we are trying to rearrange our economy and make management aware of new techniques, trying to do this not just for the big operators but also for the smaller operators and companies, whether they are working separately or in combination with others, now is the right time to offer this sort of system to people outside the Post Office, in addition to those in the Government Departments.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh put his finger on the point when he quoted from the Committee's Report in January about the need for a greater number of computers than we are likely to have available. Everything we can do to make computer time and the systems that go with it available to both large and small firms will be very welcome. The Bill is particularly useful for companies in rather isolated parts of the country, and I make this point particularly with the South-West in mind. The Post Office can offer the facilities from any part of the country. For example, to serve the West Country it does not have to put the computer centre in Bristol, although I plead that my right hon. Friend will consider that at some stage. He should not ignore the claims of Plymouth or Exeter, but the computers do not need to be in such places to get the maximum advantage from the Bill.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Would it not be possible to use the transmission facilities of the Post Office with independent computers as efficiently as—and perhaps more efficiently than—what is proposed, and meet the requirements which the hon. Member has outlined?

Mr. Dobson: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I cannot agree with it. The question is whether we want to offer computer facilities to firms spread all over the country. If we do, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees, we must then decide whether they should be under the control of the Post Office or under private control. There is room

in the economy for both systems, and there is no intention in the Bill to take anything away from private enterprise. Private enterprise firms are working on a sharing basis in many cases. Firms can buy computer time and there is nothing to stop them doing so in the future. What is important is that we use spare capacity, and make it available to anybody who wants to use it.
I believe that within the Post Office there are people who could be trained for this new type of service as analysts, programmers, and so on. A few years ago there was a successful attempt to train as programmers and systems analysts in the Post Office people selected from a wide range of those in the service. I hope that the Postmaster-General will not turn away his mind from the possibility of doing that again. I understood him to say that he was considering recruitment from outside to supply 100 staff in the next five years. But I hope that he will carefully consider giving people in the service an opportunity to enter this new sphere. Many would welcome the opportunity to do so and could use their training and talents very well.
We should also be considering the type of computers we shall use. It was signicant and welcome to me that the Post Office not only has completely British computers but has ordered a complete bank of wholly British computers, and will have it in the near future. That shows that we are keeping up with technological needs in this country.

Mr. David Price: How would the hon. Gentleman define a British computer? I am absolutely delighted that the Post Office has been buying many of the English Electric System 4 computers, but there are those who would say that they are not entirely British. I think that the English Electric system is the one which we shall mainly use. The computers are principally manufactured and developed here, but there is an agreement with another company overseas.

Mr. Dobson: There is no doubt that that happens in other spheres—the motor industry comes to mind. The hon. Gentleman was right when he spoke about the international aspects of technology. It is an international need and


will develop as time goes on. If we enter the Common Market, as I hope we shall, technology will play an important part.
One of the most important things we must determine is that the Post Office will not be a monopolistic user only, and will not have a monopoly in computer techniques. My right hon. Friend's speech made it clear that that will not happen. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite, with their deep knowledge of the subject, will come to the same conclusion at the end of the debate.
I welcome the Bill. It has great facilities to offer for the management of quite small firms. The facilities the Post Office will offer will be very good and completely secure. They can be improved and developed as techniques improve and develop here and overseas. Nobody should fear the Bill.

11.28 a.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: I have listened to the debate so far and heard my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) refer to this as a mouse of a Bill. In course of time, when people look back they may see it to be an elephant. My hon. Friend spoke of the Bill as being modest. It is simple, with but 19 lines, and it proposes something constructive. The concept behind it is exciting but is, also, depressing to a degree.
I hope that hon. Members will excuse me if I have to leave the debate before the Minister winds up, as I have another engagement. That is the problem of morning sittings. Having given my apologies, I shall try to be brief.
My reactions to the Bill are those of a back bencher who has been faced first with the statement, then the Bill and now Second Reading. Something obviously needs to be done in this sphere, and the Government must be congratulated for that reason. The Postmaster-General has put his case in the statement and again today in a charming and perhaps disarming manner. We have wondered, and shall continue to wonder, whether he can comprehend the consequences of what he puts forward.
My first reaction is to make a plea to all who are interested in data processing and communications to consider what is being put before us and to give Parlia-

ment their reactions before the Bill becomes law and it is too late. The Bill has far-reaching consequences, which we as a nation must study carefully. I am convinced that it places the Opposition in a very difficult position. I have been wondering whether to support or to oppose the Bill, because so many conflicting attitudes are expressed in it. That is why we on this side ought to be opposing the Bill outright. However, we try to be reasonable, and I am certainly trying to be so now.
Looking outside the House, computer manufacturers will obviously welcome the fact that the Government are to spend money in purchasing computers. This will mean more orders, so that their reaction will be positive. Looking further afield, the taxpayer has probably not thought about it. What we are doing is in strange contrast to the advice of the Chancellor to his back benchers last night, when he referred to growing public expenditure. It is very easy to spend someone else's money, and we have to ask how far we should permit the Post Office to spend money in this way.
I find it very strange that there was no reference to this in recent White Papers, Cmnd. 3233, Reorganisation of the Post Office, or in Cmnd. 3218, Post Office Prospects 1967–8. A White Paper outlining these proposals would have been helpful to the House and the country. What is lacking in the debate is a knowledge of the philosophy, the financial reasoning, the assessment of return of capital, and the full costs of what the Postmaster intends.
We have some background information. I have a note from Professor Gordon Black, of the National Computing Centre, who referred to a national study of a computer grid. That was a study, with no information on how such a grid would be implemented. Dr. John Laski, of the London School of Economics, in the New Scientist of September last, reported on computer grids and their operation in the United States, together with some of their limitations. When the Postmaster-General made his statement, an associate of mine, with the Bell Telephone Company, happened to be in the House. I was able to gain some first-hand impressions from him, but I have not had his reactions, or that of the Bell Telephone Company to this, and they would be valuable.

Mr. Dalyell: Referring to the interesting article of Dr. Laski in the British context, does not the hon. Gentleman see that there is no alternative to a national grid, such as suggested by my right hon. Friend? Surely the Bell Telephone Company context is entirely different, if only because of size?

Mr. Osborn: Bell have some experience in this field. I am not opposing the concept of a national grid system, which must obviously use the Post Office lines. This whole subject is one for specialists, but it is something that will affect the country. The difficulty is to make it possible to indicate to the people how they will be affected by it. This is one of those areas of activity which the country will have to continue to leave in the hands of experts. I believe that this activity would have been better carried out by the Post Office for local authorities, public bodies and the nationalised industries in the first instance. I also think that this is an area where the Government can have a co-ordinating influence in the matter of information abstraction, storage and retrieval.
The Parliamentary and Scientific Committee is undertaking a study on this subject of technical information, trying to discover what are the possibilities. I have been associated with that work. No conclusions have been reached as yet, but, obviously, the Postmaster-General's proposals will be studied by the Committee. The other area for using processing equipment of this type, information storage and retrieval is for current affairs, this would include statements to be made. This would be of direct concern to this House.
The Postmaster-General referred to the concept of the data bank and desk top computers. This is a concept that we must operate, and something that must come. The question is: how will it come? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the co-ordinated framework of a national computer grid. This must come to some extent, but to what extent is a question that must be given much wider study. We must not give the Postmaster-General a free hand without knowing what he is doing, and commenting on it.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of confidentiality. I talked to a businessman and he said, "Of

course, we will not let our information go to the Post Office Bureau"—he would not place his secrets there but for those who do, how can we guarantee that there will be confidentiality. The Post Office undoubtedly has a very fine reputation. I am convinced that the Postmaster-General was sincere when he stressed this confidentiality, but this is something which those affected will have to explore.

Mr. Dobson: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be technically easier to build complete secrecy into this new equipment and its use, whether on the line side or in the equipment, at all levels? It is possible to do this now with the present system of trying not to disperse information between companies.

Mr. Osborn: If we are confining this to computers, I could not give the answer, but it would be possible for someone who held the key, namely, the Post Office, to break this secrecy down. Proper answers must be given to these questions. I have tried to indicate that I am not an expert in this matter, along with many other hon. Members. These are simple questions to which we must have simple answers.
In his disarming way the Postmaster-General said that this was not to be a monopoly—the Post Office would do it with others. I fear that we might make the same mistakes as we did in the development of atomic energy. Undoubtedly, with hindsight the British solution immediately after the war was one giving us technical advance at a very rapid rate. But those connected with the Atomic Energy Authority, and those who have been on the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, realise that it has left us with a legacy. We must consider what will be the outcome if this Bill is implemented. Despite the Postmaster-General's protestations, will there be unfair competition, not because he wishes it, or the Government wish it, but will there be such competition as to drive the present users of computers out of this activity? We must examine this question.
This is an enabling Measure about which we have far too little background. We could have had a White Paper dealing with it. It is something which should be


looked at by the Select Committee on Science and Technology. It should have been studied in much greater detail before the right hon. Gentleman asked the House for the Bill. Because we have mixed feelings it is difficult to make informed comments. Engineering, said:
Although Mr. Short assured M.P.s that the G.P O. did not intend to have a monopoly in data processing services, this could be the result whether it liked it or not.
Engineering, had much more to say. This is the danger. Has Engineering, understated the danger? Are we giving the Postmaster-General a blank cheque which will make it difficult for others to compete?
I do not wish to bring the political side into the argument, but there is Clause 4, which is part of Socialist policy. It is mentioned in the manifestoes. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has strong views on this matter which no doubt he will reiterate. But this is an extension of Clause 4. It involves the ownership not only of production, distribution and exchange, but of information. This could be an insidious threat. Obviously, the Postmaster-General and the Government do not intend that this should be the case, or, it they do, they have presented the matter in a very disarming and charming way which makes it difficult for the Opposition to oppose it.
We have spoken of the strength of monopolies. My view is that transmission and the extension of coaxial cables, and so on, is undoubtedly something which the Post Office should extend in the form of a grid. I am not sure that a large Government agency is the best body to provide a national data processing service. This is a matter which will have to be debated in the House and outside. The Post Office must decide what it is in business for, and the taxpayers will want the Opposition to ascertain that their money is being spent wisely.
Since the Bill has been rushed on us, I should have thought that the Opposition would have been well advised to oppose it. If we do not oppose it, we must have clarification in Standing Committee. If that clarification does not make the matter much clearer to me and to others, then I shall urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Bill on Third Reading.

11.43 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: At one stage in his speech, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) said that he was being non-political. However, he made some fairly politically loaded statements. If one draws analogies from, perhaps, a certain disappointment in the performance of the Atomic Energy Authority, one should recognise that, as usual, there are two sides of the story. If the hon. Gentleman proposes to make that kind of point, I should have to draw attention to the disadvantages as well as the advantages of having three consortia instead of perhaps one design authority. Although this is perhaps relevant to the Bill, it should not take up too much time this morning, as there are others wishing to speak.
I am baffled by the Opposition's argument. They say that we should have a computer grid, but they do not tell us who would run it. I reiterate the point which I made in my intervention, that if there is to be any sort of meaningful computer grid in a country the size of Britain, it can be run only by the Post Office. American experience in these matters often is not relevant and sometimes is entirely misleading. This is an instance in which it is very misleading.
The hon. Member for Hallam referred to Professor Gordon Black and the National Computing Centre. I have not understood Professor Black to question what my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General is doing. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology can give us any views available to him from the National Computing Centre on these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) laid stress on the regional development aspects of what the Government are doing. I should have thought that this was one of the most important aspects of what the House is doing today. I hope that the Government will take every opportunity to bring to the attention of potential developers, be they in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East, Scotland or the north-east of England, where the constituency of the Postmaster-General is situated, the benefits which can accrue to them from the developments which we are discussing.
The Postmaster-General said that we should provide a data service to any customer with whom we can come to terms. I do not have many doubts that big business will take advantage of the facilities. I have some doubts whether relatively small and medium businesses will understand how they can benefit. I therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary, as I asked in a supplementary question when the original statement was made, what action the Government are taking to educate small businesses about the benefits which can accrue to them from this kind of service. Will the Government take the initiative and perhaps circularise a vast number of firms? What action are his regional officers and those of the Ministry of Technology taking in this matter?
The Postmaster-General referred to the question of research and development, especially on relatively cheap machines which could be used on cash counters. Obviously, this is extremely important, not only for British industry, but in terms of potential exports. Where will this research and development be done? Is the Post Office sure that the best way to carry out the increasing amount of research and development which it is undertaking is in its own centres?
As one who is strongly in favour of either having research and development carried out inside manufacturing units, be they public industry or private industry, or, alternatively, in the universities, I would argue that there is a strong case for pursuing the principle already adopted by my right hon. Friend of giving sponsored research work to universities such as Essex. Some of us on this side of the House welcome very much what my right hon. Friend has done in promoting chairs and research work at one particular university. I hope that this can be extended. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can indicate what his Ministry or the Post Office is doing in this respect.
I refer briefly to a recent visit which I made to the Institute of Computing Science in London. One of the projects in which the Institute was interested was the basic language machine. In an article in the New Scientist, on 29th September, 1966, Bryan Higman referred to the need for what he called the B.L.M.—the basic language machine. He wrote:
The Ministry of Technology, through its advanced computer project, has given B.L.M.

its blessing in the form of hard cash. The machine could not be in service in less than about five years, but even that might be timely enough for large-scale application in a national information utility.
This is directly relevant to the subject of our debate. It is also relevant not least to my constituents, many of whom work in microcircuitry and electronic engineering, and will develop increasing markets with Europe. Should we go into the Common Market, this matter would become extremely important for areas such as mine, where we want an efficient language service.
I do not know whether I am asking too many questions of the Parliamentary Secretary. Perhaps he would write to me on the subject if it is unreasonable to ask for a detailed reply "off the cuff".
I welcome what the Postmaster-General said about computer to computer, and particularly the relation of accounts to the giro system. Whereas these matters are now heard today by about 10 Members of Parliament, they will be far more important to the future of the country than many of the things that are discussed in a full house. That goes for the data bank, too.
I am concerned about the training of the systems analysts. I understand that there are to be 100 a year, but I should have thought that there was some argument in favour of a crash programme. The Parliamentary Secretary may have something to say on the steps that the Government are taking to increase the training of systems analysts. He might also tell the House at what age and at what level he thinks this should be done. Is it a suitable basis on which to expand the activities of some of the regional technical colleges? If so, who is to take the initiative—is it to be the technical colleges themselves?
My hon. Friend might be able, also, to give more details—perhaps in a public statement of where the 20 centres are to be. Here, I express particular interest in what is to take place at Edinburgh. I agree with the Postmaster-General that this is not in any sense a marginal activity, and I am personally glad that the charges to public users will reflect a share of the total overheads. I should like every opportunity to be taken to make this attitude public, in case any misunderstandings arise. How will the present service be used by regional hospital


boards? Perhaps we might have an explanation of the remark that there will be no interference with university computers—I should have thought that a link here would have been useful.
I am concerned about the impact of data processing on government. I should like to draw attention to some rather remarkable writing by James Robertson, both in "Occasional Papers", published by the Treasury yesterday, and in his evidence to the Fulton Committee, which I consider to be some of the most remarkable evidence given to that Committee yet published. Robertson argues in favour of a nation-wide system of medical records and the use of such systems for tax assessment. He then says:
…Ministries like the Ministry of Technology and the Department of Education and Science will set up 'banks' of technical and scientific information, which it will be possible to consult through terminals in various parts of the country. Ministries like Technology and Overseas Development will use systems of this kind for analysing the research and development programme and the overseas aid programme.
In his evidence to the Fulton Committee he draws attention to the whole impact of this development on British government. He says:
In thinking about the work of government, and in analysing how it should be performed, we shall have to revert to the traditional concept…where the function of making decisions is distinguished from the supporting function of processing the information relevant to them, and where different responsibilities for making decisions are clearly defined—horizontally and vertically—in relation to one another.
As I know that other hon. Members want to speak, I will not go through the whole of Robertson's evidence to the Fulton Committee, but perhaps my hon. Friend will write to me on the extremely important questions that Robertson raises in his evidence, particularly in pages 52·54 of that evidence.

11.54 a.m.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I should, first, declare an interest by stating that I am chairman of one of the few independent computer bureaux in this country. It has been in existence now for nearly five years, and has had a fairly considerable struggle to establish itself. I can, therefore, claim to have some modest experience of the type of

problem which the computer bureau faces and which, undoubtedly, this very much larger Government installation will face on a much larger scale.
At one o'clock this morning, many of us were present in the House legislating in an atmosphere of much emotion in a field that we could not hope to control. This morning, by an interesting contrast, the House is in a quiet and well-tempered mood, legislating on a proposal that will have a far greater influence on the life of the country than almost anything that has gone through the House of Commons since I have been a Member of it, brief though that time may have been. It seems strange that, although possibly more interesting things have been done here, on a matter of such great national importance we should find present now perhaps 2 per cent. of hon. Members and perhaps 1 per cent. of members of the Press Gallery.
Some time ago, one of the national newspapers ran a competition for a headline that would take the place of honour in the world Press in the year 2000. The headline that won the competition was "Government Computer Resign". Today, we are in at the start of another headline, which might be "Government Computer is Born". Although I do not have the opportunity to give an unequivocal welcome to that birth, I must be unequivocal in welcoming what the Postmaster-General has said, that at least part of the birth will take place at Portsmouth.
In between those two headlines might we not have one reading "Government Computer is Unwell"? Probably not—the headline is more likely to read "Mass Redundancy of Private Computers". Although those computers will not walk the streets, perhaps we might explore whether the Government computer will have some sympathy for them in their predicament. That is an aspect I want to explore in some detail—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I am rather interested in my hon. Friend's concentration on headlines, but is he not aware that the only time these computers are likely to get a headline is when they are divorced, or something like that?

Mr. Lloyd: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he is quite right.
I turn to the Postmaster-General's description of the uses of computers. OFFICIAL REPORT, in column 465. I am sure that no one on either side of the House would object to his aim of having 20 modern computers in use by 1971, but the problem goes much further, because the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that a market for some of the computer capacity will exist
… especially among the smaller businesses and organisations which are unlikely to be able to justify computers of their own.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1967; Vol. 744, c. 465.]
It is clear from that statement that the Post Office will compete specifically and directly with private computer bureaux.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was sincere in his intention, and in his statement that the competition will be on a "wholly commercial basis", but we must explore that statement in view of certain aspects in private computer bureaux that are closely connected with it. First, the business failure rate has been very high. Second, profits are extremely difficult to earn. Third, technological obsolescence is unequalled.
Perhaps I can illustrate that third point by showing this small object. As the House is nearly empty at the moment, I think that all hon. Members can see it. It is a small plastic block in which are encapsulated the types of circuit in use three or four years ago. On the other hand, I have here the type of thing now going into the modern computer. It consists of tiny silicone cells which I can hardly see. One cannot see the circuitry unless one uses a small microscope. What a pity it is that in this Chamber there is no visual aid mechanism by which every hon. Member could see this object—perhaps the Postmaster-General will give some thought to some such provision.
The fourth point is that there is no doubt that capital requirements are formidable. It is fair to say that over the last four or five years, with much encouragement by Governments on both sides, a very considerable amount of private capital has been invested. Much of it has been lost, but some of it is still there and has a right to at least fair-minded consideration by the Government in respect of this proposal. In this

context, we are entitled to ask: will the Post Office bureau be a commercial entity which is completely separate from the Post Office?
Will its accounts be quite separate from the Post Office accounts? Will we know as much about it as we are entitled to know—the House is moving progressively forward in this field—about it or any other public or private company? Fourthly, will its staff be paid at commercial or Civil Service rates?
All these questions are fundamental to the balance of the relationship between the Post Office computer bureau and private computer bureaux. The Postmaster-General has stated that the basis of its operation rests largely on the intention to use surplus or unused capacity. In principle, this is an admirable idea, but what does it mean and imply? How is this surplus capacity to be priced? The Postmaster-General has said that the organisation will carry its full share of depreciation and overheads. He has also said that it will not get any business unless its charges are right.
I should like to explore the very real inconsistency between those two statements. Does the Postmaster-General know what percentage of computer business in the country has recovered full depreciation and overheads involved in the giving of this business? I do not know the figure, but I should guess that it is undoubtedly very small. What is the Post Office policy to be? Is it to meet the market price, which in my experience broadly speaking does not cover overheads and depreciation, or is it to set appropriate theoretical prices which will recover overheads and depreciation of Post Office computers and as a result get no business at all?
If the Post Office does the former, this theoretically raises the questions of subsidy, where is the subsidy to come from, and how are we to keep a proper check and control over it? We must face straight away the fact that at the moment in the conditions prevailing in this country as I know and understand them—and as far as I know conditions prevailing in the United States where there are over 30,000 computers in operation at the moment—being competitive in many senses means being uneconomic, certainly in the short-term and possibly in the immediate term. Obviously, in the long-term


that is a situation which cannot endure. For reasons we know of in the aircraft industry and others it cannot be viable in the long run, but in the short-term this problem has to be faced.
The Postmaster-General talked about spending £9 million over the next five years. Is it necessary to spend this public money? If so, can we be told what proportion is to be spent on machines and what proportion on "software" or programming? This is one of the most important decisions which have to be made by the management of many private computer organisations. We are entitled to know what is the Government's thinking on the management of the national computing organisation which it is proposed to set up.
Already in the country there is considerable surplus capacity of machine time. It is very considerable, but there is no surplus capacity of programming. This is a problem of which I am sure the Postmaster-General is aware. There is a surplus of machine capacity and we should know the Government's thinking on the effect of this surplus capacity, not only on the economics of the State sector and the national computer industry, but of the whole computer industry of the country.
We should like to know how the Post Office proposes to deal with the question of time priorities among its customers. If there are two very important customers, one a private firm and one a Government Department and both want computer time on Friday afternoon because it is essential to their operations, how is the Post Office computer organisation to decide priorities in cases of that kind? I am not suggesting that I know the answer, but this is a problem where some thought should be given to the criteria and the House should be made aware of the Government's thinking on it.
A good deal has been said about the question of confidence. I do not think that there is any real dispute about the Government's intentions in this matter or the Post Office's intentions about its considerable record or about the very important area which has been uncovered on which there are no clear or foreseeable answers yet. I make this simple point. The Postmaster-General has said that the new organisation will work as much in

the field of programming as in the field of computer time. This is very critical because good programming requires a considerable understanding of the structure of a business as well as the details.
Programmers who have access to structural information will have to know a great deal more than a tax inspector has ever known about the structure of an organisation, its markets and everything else. He will have to observe an ethical code comparable to that which the best industrial consultants or the banks now observe. Other Government Departments and other business computers must not benefit accidentally. We must have a very solemn and effective assurance from the Postmaster-General about this.
Finally, are the priorities right? I have a particular bee in my bonnet on this and I propose to take two or three minutes to indulge the attention of the House about it. I have spoken before about computer facilities for the House of Commons. It is fair to ask, should not the Post Office he considering, in conjunction with the Treasury, the Department of Economic Affairs and all Government Departments receiving economic data, supplying or creating within the Palace of Westminster the necessary machinery data—processing computing facilities required to achieve a real-time presentation of national economic data for the use of Members of both Houses of Parliament.
This should be such a high priority required from our national thinking that I would be prepared to give a much fairer wind to any Post Office proposals which claim to be considering the national interest if I knew that in the list of its priorities the House of Commons was in the position it ought to hold.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I suspect, sympathises with this suggestion, will say something about it. This is the touchstone of any Government's respect for the House of Commons. I hope that in the near foreseeable future the Government will give an indication of how seriously they take this task. If we are to govern this country and it is to be a computerised country, numerous people in the position of decision making throughout the land will have access to more information than we


have, or at least a comparable amount of information, and the far-reaching effects of that cannot be taken too seriously.

12.8 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: I wish to make my remarks under four headings: first, whether we want the Bill at all; secondly, whether we want it at this point of time; thirdly, some remarks about staff; and, fourthly, I want to touch on points about confidentiality which have been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd).
Any Tory speaking on this subject ought to move with wariness, conscious of the absent-mindedness of Disraeli whose views on telegraphy resulted in it being instituted as a nationalised service. I think there is a danger that we might regard this morning's proceedings as of a substantial but relatively uncontentious nature, and, therefore, proceeds on its way. In a few years' time we will discover that this morning's proceedings were of far greater significance than anyone had really had time to assess during the short period in which we were able to consider the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman said that this was fulfilling one of the Government's election pledges. That does not immediately suggest to me that it is therefore non-controversial. It might be, but I would have thought that there was at least a case for thinking that it might not be.

Mr. Edward Short: Modernising the economy.

Mr. Biffen: Modernising the economy is a sedentary slogan which falls from the lips as easily as anything. I remember the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, saying that if there had not been a case for Socialism, automation created that case. It is easy enough to try to fudge the political implications of so many of one's decisions and to say that this is a highly complex and technically significant subject and therefore we will remove it from party controversy and slip it in on a Wednesday morning and hope to get the whole beastly business through in one go.
But I wonder why something of this significance has not been the subject of

a White Paper and of discussion by the Committee on Science and Technology. One would have thought that this was an issue which was pre-eminently suitable for a degree of public discussion before it was brought to the Floor of the House, where, ultimately, as we are seeing this morning, all final political decisions have to be taken.
My answer to the first question—do we want this Bill at all, do we have to have a national computer grid under the control of the Post Office?—is that I do not know. I do not feel that I have had the opportunity to appraise a good deal of the comment which I think I might otherwise have had had there been a longer time lag between the publication of the Bill and the Second Reading.
From information that I have, I understand that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology is seeing the banks, hoping, as I understand it, that they will be encouraged to move in with this major development. I feel that the discussions which he is having, or hopes to have, privately with the banks raise the kind of issues which could well have been given a public airing before the Bill was given a Second Reading.
After all, when the Bill was published, it was possible to hold the view that it was a Measure to enable the Post Office to use up spare time on the computers which it hoped to secure for its giro system. I think that this was very much in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) when he asked his Question, but there can be no doubt after this morning that what the Postmaster-General seeks is something far wider.
The right hon. Gentleman called it "a simple enabling Bill", but he went on to say that "it would enable the Post Office to undertake any data processing service with a customer with whom we can come to terms". This has immense implications, and these have been the subject of some very interesting speeches this morning. I hardly think that they fall in the category of being non-contentious, or of secondary importance, which I always understood governed our proceedings on morning sittings.
There is one other point on which I should like to touch. It was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for


Portsmouth, Langstone and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price), and this is how one can check overheads and make sure that the competition which is to be offered by this nationalised computer service will be fair to the private sector. This is an immensely difficult question to answer. It is much easier to throw down the challenge than it is to answer, because the whole question of checking overheads with a highly complex form of intensive capital investment is one which I would have thought would have put us all in some difficulty in knowing whether we were getting the right answer.
We do, however, know some of the pressures and traditions under which we will be operating, and perhaps I might deal first with the traditions. For reasons perhaps of historical accident, the Post Office has over the years tended to lose money on second-class inland mail and parcel post, both services which are used substantially by business. It has tended to do rather better out of its services to the public, but in the service offered to businesses there has been an element of subsidy. I always thought that the mail order companies did rather well out of this, but this is just a side illustration.
We know, too, that there is a widespread assumption that what industry needs today is to make far greater use of competing techniques. I have some doubt about this. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) mentioned this, and he was not alone. Many would say that what we need in British industry today is greater emphasis on the use of all the modern technological services which might be made available.
I shall, therefore, not be surprised if the climate under which the Post Office will be operating over the next few years is that it is to some extent providing a national service if it offers a hidden subsidy in the provision of computer services. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not for a moment think that I am casting any doubt on the good faith in which these assurances are given, but my instinct tells me that pressures are bound to be developed which say that if one cannot load the machines there is a good case for trying to improve the general tone of British industry by offering the services at below true cost.

Mr. Dobson: If the Post Office gives a service at very much below what the hon. Gentleman thinks is a fair cost, what disadvantage is that, first, to firms taking advantage of it, and, secondly, to the economy of the country in general?

Mr. Biffen: I hope that I shall not be diverted too far in answering the hon. Gentleman. I think that it would be a misuse of the resources if one were subsidising and concealing the true cost. This could have consequential distorting effects on the economy.
My second observation on the hon. Gentleman's intervention is that he has illustrated the attitude of mind which I am saying might exist, because the situation to which he has referred is a situation which his right hon. Friend says will not arise. Already there is an hon. Gentleman opposite who says that even if it does arise there are very good reasons why one should consider the propositions which have been put from the Front Bench.

Mr. Dobson: It was the hon. Gentleman who raised the matter. He accepted what my right hon. Friend said, and then raised the hypothetical point in respect of which I asked a question, which the hon. Gentleman has not answered.

Mr. Biffen: We could obviously continue this discussion for some time and that might somewhat squeeze the debate, but I think that the way in which the hon. Member reacted to my observation lends point to my suspicion. We will have to leave it at that. I am sorry that I do not satisfy him that offering subsidised services has the effect of distorting the economy in a way which in the long run is harmful. This is something which we could argue endlessly. I think that one should try to assess a proper and fair cost. If anything, we suffer from a kind of obsession with the prestigious kind of investment and I regard computers as possibly coming into that category, and I am not alone in that view.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: If there were excess capacity, as my hon. Friend has suggested there might be, and if it was operated at below cost because it was subsidised, would not that mean that we were not fully and economically using the capacity already available, and would not that mean that nationally we were not


using the whole of our capacity? Is it not one of our major problems in the economy today that we are not working to the full some of the very expensive machines which we have in our factories?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The difficulties relate not to the total quantum of investment, but to the lack of profitable use of existing investment.
Secondly, do we want the Bill now? There are very strong reasons for questioning how the Bill fits the Chancellor's announcement last night, apparently made to a private meeting—that the Government are anxious to curtail public expenditure. We have been given the figure of £9 million. I should like to know how that is to be divided, not merely as between machines and software, but how much is to cover the salaries of those who are to carry out the service. Are we to understand that that figure excludes the 20 large computers which the Post Office hopes to have in service by 1971 and whose cost must appear in the Ministry's capital expenditure programmes between now and 1971? In the Postmaster-General's own words, these are very expensive and powerful machines. The House would considerably benefit from having further information on that matter.
There is, thirdly, the question of the staff. I have considerable doubts about whether the Government can recruit the staff required, unless they take a rather different attitude to these people than they have been taking to some of their other technically qualified staff. We have already had evidence made available to the House by the Public Accounts Committee to show what difficulty there is in recruiting technical cost officers to the Ministry of Aviation.
Evidence has been submitted to the Estimates Committee by the National Board for Prices and Incomes of its great difficulty in recruiting accountants. Are we to understand that in this case the Government will be paying the market rate for these people, a rate unrelated to any Civil Service pay scales? I believe that this is the policy which they have adopted at the National Computing Centre, but I should

like confirmation of that. Is it their view that that policy should be extended to Post Office data processing activities? If so, how will those rates be related to the pay structure of others employed in the Post Office?
My fourth question concerns confidentiality. No one for a moment doubts that it will be the objective of the Post Office to treat this information with the utmost confidence. Not one hon. Member believes that there will be scope for any bribery of Post Office employees to make available any information which they may be handling. That is not the issue. The issue is that once a growing Government share in this kind of data transmitting is encouraged, companies come under increasing pressure to make the information available to the Government, as part of their national duty even if not as a statutory requirement. Yesterday we had the matter of Stencil No. 85 when the Inland Revenue had asked for information for which there was no statutory requirement whatever.
Incidents like that cannot but leave behind certain doubts. Once companies are committed to transmitting vital information, information on which vital decisions are to be taken and concerning investment, pricing policy and a whole range of top management decisions, they will come under increasing pressure from the Government machine to make that information available as part of their general co-operation with the whole business of Government.
Any business man who has any doubts or qualms about what I have said need only read the Fabian pamphlet by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology who sees the development of the computer grid system and the greater use by companies of computerised records as the means whereby the Government can take much more detailed regulatory control over the economy. The hon. Gentleman said in that pamphlet that the unit of decision taking was the company and not the industry. Once we have a growing computer service of this kind, a public authority will have all kinds of information in its hands, information on which individual company management decisions will be taken the details of which would be much desired by a party committed to national planning.

Mr. Edward Short: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not overlook the fact that the Post Office is to become an independent corporation in the spring of 1969.

Mr. Biffen: I certainly took that into account when forming this view. That does not mean that I think that it will not be subject to the kind of pressures which rightly give rise to this anxiety.
It is in these terms that one has to have considerable doubt about the long-term consequences for the freedom of free enterprise should this kind of development go forward without much greater scrutiny than we are giving it on this occasion.

12.27 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: As one would expect, most of the points which I had hoped to put to the right hon. Gentleman have been made. It is only right that we should ask many questions at this stage, because there has not been much time between publishing the Bill and this debate. As the Bill goes merrily on its way, we shall require answers in greater detail than would have been the case if we had had a White Paper and more time. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary will try to meet us on that issue.
I join with those who have asked whether this is intended to be a permanently subsidised service. Will it be run as a completely separate organisation, or will it be merged with other parts of the existing Post Office set-up? Will the wage rates be commercial, or Civil Service wage rates?
I know that this new service will be capable of examination by Select Committee, but will it be capable of being the subject of Questions in the House? The Post Office is to be an outside organisation later, as the right hon. Gentleman has just reminded us. Will a Select Committee be the only way in which to keep "tabs" on this new service, or shall we be able to put Parliamentary Questions, which are very valuable, especially for a new service which is just beginning and which help to reinforce Parliament's control?
How much of the £9 million is to be capital expenditure? How much shall we be able to see for our money and how much will be spent on building up the

service and other things which have no tangible value? Has there been an examination of the demand and of the potential market to justify setting up the service? Are the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues absolutely satisfied that we shall not have excess capacity which cannot be used?
I was always impressed with the late Aneurin Bevan's views about this. He felt very strongly that excess capacity with technical machine tools—

It being half-past Twelve, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

USED MOTOR VEHICLES (PURCHASE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: I wish to draw attention to the need for greater protection for purchasers of used motor vehicles. The subject of motoring and motorists can arouse deep feelings and perhaps this is a more controversial subject than is normally discussed at morning sittings. It has been suggested that people can be divided into two distinct classes—motorists and the rest. But that may be an exaggeration. Motorists may constitute our largest single criminal class, but they are certainly not guilty of all that they are accused of and are entitled to the same degree of protection as, if not a greater degree than, other sections of the community.
The purpose of this debate is to draw attention to some of the risks that lie in the path of those wishing to move from the quiet uncertainties of pedestrian-ship to the comparative freedom of motor ownership, with all the risks, trials and tribulations involved. It may be that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—a motorist himself, and with knowledge of these affairs—will welcome the opportunity to tell us what the Ministry has done. Indeed, a great deal has been done. I hope that he agrees that this is an appropriate time for the debate because there is something in the spring of the year—the call of the open road,


the need for mobility. During the last few sunny days, used car sales have soared, even though there are many hazards ahead.
Here, I should declare my interest, first, as an owner-driver, and, secondly, as the owner of two previously used motor cars. My hon. Friend looks rather surprised. The first is a 1954 Daimler Conquest saloon, which is my pride and joy. The second is a Hillman 1400 c.c. of similar date, acquired during the last few weeks and the perfect example of the kind of vehicle not to acquire—to put it mildly.
Early last autumn, a constituent of mine asked my help about difficulties he had encountered after purchasing a used motor vehicle. There was, unfortunately, little that one could do at the time. Some, but not much, help was available. Since then, I have taken considerable interest in the used car trade.
By inquiry and by experience, I know that the great majority of private vendors, car dealers and auctioneers are honest and reliable and that they value their reputation and give good service. I know this both by report and experience over the last few months, because I have visited dealers on Merseyside, London and other regions. Of course, there are unscrupulous people in any trade or profession and the car trade has no more and no less than any other. Unfortunately, too many potential car owners believe that they can get something for nothing, have a right to a bargain and have a greater mechanical knowledge than they really possess.
Purchases through reputable local dealers rarely present problems and when they do the dealers, who have their reputations to safeguard, will usually go out of their way to be helpful. Car dealers and private vendors advertise extensively in the columns of regional evening newspapers and the motoring magazines. One can choose anything from
Two Consuls (breaking for spares) £6
to cars that "need slight attention", or which are "good runners" and "reliable". One progresses also to the three months guarantee for "A.1. guaranteed vehicles". The choice is infinite. So are the dangers.
The third way to become a motorist is through car auctions that are held regularly in the greater centres of population. Some auctions handle high quality, high price, good condition cars. Some divide their sales into two parts, the first for high-quality cars with reserve prices and a guarantee and the second for cars offered without reserve and without warranty.
For a confessed motor enthusiast, car auctions have provided many happy hours and a great deal of experience not only about cars, but about human nature as well. But at times it has been tragic to see unsuspecting people—for example, a man with a young family, looking for the first car, the weekend driver—bidding and overbidding for a vehicle that would be a danger to himself and other people on the road. Such people are not only influenced by the desire to get the car they want, but at an auction, in particular, one can get the feeling, "I want this. That man is bidding more and I do not like to be beaten". I can vouch for how a person can fall for that because that is how I became the owner of my second car, at an auction—partly to provide evidence that dangerous vehicles can be offered for sale and can be sold under the law.
However, I thought that the car I was buying was in a repairable condition. I am not so sure now. The dealer did all that he had to do under the law. He described the car so far as he had to describe it. It was taxed and had a current M.O.T. certificate and he gave the date of expiry of the certificate. The body was rough, but the engine as sweet as a nut. It was not possible to look more closely at the vehicle, because of other cars parked tightly on either side but the bodywork seemed nice. I bought it for 14 guineas. This was more than I had intended to pay, but someone else was offering a little more and I did not want to be beaten. I fell into the trap.
I looked at the form of sale and in small print at the bottom of numerous clauses were the words:
This vehicle is sold on the understanding that it will not be used on a road in Great Britain until it has been put in such a condition that it may lawfully be so used.
I should have read that small print first, perhaps. But the dealer was right to do as he did. The responsibility was mine,


not the dealer's. The test certificate was to expire in a month. After I purchased the car, it was retaxed without difficulty.
I then drove the car to Liverpool, to have it examined by my old friend, Councillor Stewart, Chairman of Liverpool City Council's Consumer Protection Committee. Liverpool has a fine record in the matter of consumer protection. Its transport department runs one of the best testing stations in the North-West. If an hon. Member wants a good check made of his car, that is the place to go. I do not know whether I am allowed a "commercial". But if any hon. Member simply wants a certificate to get a car on the road he should not take it to that test centre.
Councillor Stewart described the car as a death trap. This was confirmed by subsequent independent examination. My status as a good motorist and expert or the mechanical defects or lack of them fell considerably. A report of the incident received some publicity in the local newspaper and in others and I put down some Questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I asked whether she would introduce legislation to place the responsibility for the roadworthiness of the vehicle on the vendor rather than on the purchaser. I was told that it was already an offence to sell or offer for sale a vehicle in such a condition that it would not be legal to use it on the roads. Apparently, there are exceptions because the form of sale I undertook was legal. The law is good, but it can be avoided.
Since then, I have had many examples sent to me in letters from all over the country pointing out difficulties other people have experienced. A man in Southend bought a Jaguar for £289. After 150 miles the gear box failed, the brakes were faulty, the engine casing split and jacking points, which had been filled with cement, broke. He returned to the dealer. He had paid £289 and the dealer offered him £34 to take it off his hands.
A lady in Huyton—my neighbour in this House is aware of the incident—paid £223 for a saloon, with a deposit of £110—a not inconsiderable sum. After one week the clutch failed and the car was in and out of the garage for repairs. An M.O.T. test was failed, and the car was described as being a death trap. But the bill of sale had said quite clearly

"sold on merit, as seen, tested and approved". It seems that the lady would have no redress in law, although the company may be able to make some ex gratia payment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he will be aware that it is not open to him in an Adjournment debate to advocate matters that will involve legislation. It is not open to him to advocate changes in the law. I take it that the hon. Member is referring to matters where, he suggests, the existing law ought to be enforced?

Mr. Ogden: Yes, this is so. These are examples which come a little outside the law, but there are ways, without arguing for an extension of the law, although this may be referred to in time, of dealing with this. It could be explained more fully to the public. This is partly the purpose of this debate, so that my hon. Friend will be able to point out some of the dangers and difficulties. These are examples of people, both vendor and purchaser who have conformed to the law as it is. If both sides understood the law a little better they would not get into this difficulty.
A letter from Worcester tells of a 1963 saloon, bought for £440. The man was left with a completely unserviceable car and the dealer offered him half of his purchase price back. From Northern Ireland—and this would be of interest to hon. Members opposite, but the benches are empty; they may have liked to know that sometimes Members, other than those from Northern Ireland receive letters from people living there—comes a letter from a man who bought a 1963 saloon on a Thursday. On the following day he had to leave it in the garage because it refused to go and eventually it was completely written off. The man had traded in his old car for £60, and thought that he had signed a form to purchase the other car for £295. However, he later found that he had signed for a purchase price of £350. These are exceptions to the rule. There are good traders, but there are, unfortunately, too many exceptions.
Government Departments could be an example of honesty in the disposal of motor vehicles. I understand that the


Post Office takes great care to ensure that potential buyers are fully aware of the condition of used vehicles offered for sale. It has two methods of disposal, one by open tender and the other at public auctions. The open tender method involves advertisements placed by head postmasters, which draw the attention of prospective buyers to the fact that the vehicles are offered without any guarantee as to roadworthiness. Every advertisement emphasises that the responsibility is on the purchaser and not the vendor.
At the public auction, the Post Office insists that the vehicles are divided into two categories, "non-runners", a very unambiguous description, and "runners". The auctioneer is required to make a condition report for each vehicle, and to ensure that the report is displayed on the windscreen of the vehicle prior to and at the time of the sale.
Further, the auctioneer has the power to move a car or van from the "runner" class to the "non-runner" class if he is not satisfied, after a proper condition test has been made, that the vehicle is really a "runner". Perhaps the Minister could persuade the A.A. and R.A.C. to use their good offices to encourage dealers to voluntarily accept such a condition. The evidence submitted by the R.A.C. to the Misrepresentation Committee and the Law Reform Committee will be well known to my hon. Friend.
I want to put forward a number of suggestions for the consideration of the Minister. First, M.O.T. certificates should cover more than the present basic items. It should be made known that the certificate does not necessarily mean that the vehicle is roadworthy some months after the issue of a certificate. The Ministry might be able to use space in the advertising columns of newspapers and motoring magazines, pointing out some of the dangers inherent in people buying things, willy-nilly, about which they know very little.
Insurance companies should be encouraged to be much more selective in "covering" used cars and vendors should be required to produce a condition report prior to a sale, at the time of sale. In legislation now going through the House, a "think again" Clause could

be included to recover the purchase price and cost if the vehicle is said to be in a condition in which it is found not to be after independent examination. These are links between the finance company, the vendor and the purchaser. The responsibility for the condition and roadworthiness of the vehicle should be placed on the vendor, rather than as at present, on the purchaser.
These proposals will do no harm to reputable dealers. Indeed, they may be welcomed by them. They will help to protect purchasers and will do much to prevent the sale of unsafe cars, making the roads safer.

12.45 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): I welcome the opportunity which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) has given of telling the House what the Ministry has done and is doing to protect motorists and all road users. My hon. Friend has given a great deal of thought to this subject, as we have come to expect from him when he raises matters. He has been very constructive, and I will deal with some of the points he has raised, and take up others with him in correspondence.
As my hon. Friend said, I am a motorist and I am perhaps a masochist in that I enjoy long-distance motoring. I know a great many of the highways at home and abroad, but I must confess that driving more than 600 miles in 24 hours from abroad to this country, when my children were ill, was an experience that I shall never forget.
I will deal with the existing legal safeguards against the sale of unsafe vehicles to which my hon. Friend has referred. Under the provisions of Section 68 of the Road Traffic Act of 1960, it is an offence, subject to prosecution and penalty, to sell or offer for sale a motor vehicle which it would be unlawful to use on the roads, having regard to the Construction and Use and Lighting Regulations.
This is subject to the proviso that no offence is committed if a vendor can show that he had good cause to believe that the vehicle would not be used on a road before it was made roadworthy.


The fine for that offence is one not exceeding £100. As regards the evidence of the extent and seriousness of the problem, we have found little to suggest that the present legislative safeguards are inadequate to control the sale of secondhand vehicles in an unroadworthy condition, to an extent presenting a road safety problem justifying further legislation.
Nevertheless, we acknowledge the desirability of taking any reasonable precautions to stop up any loopholes that there may be and we are taking various steps to achieve this end. I would like to tell the House what we are doing. First, motor insurers generally have agreed that as from 1st May, when a total loss payment is made on a seriously damaged vehicle, the registration book will be sent to the appropriate local taxation officer. The book will be endorsed with the words:
seriously damaged vehicle, insurance total loss payment".
Subsequent and duplicate books will be similarly marked, and if the vehicle is subsequently repaired and offered for sale, a prospective buyer would be aware that it had suffered accident damage, and could if he wished, have the vehicle inspected by a qualified motor engineer before purchasing. He would have been put on warning.
Secondly, arrangements have been made with the Home Office to ensure close co-operation between our traffic area staffs and the police in the enforcement of Section 68. Area mechanical engineers have been asked to ensure that action is taken where warranted to investigate all cases reported to them of vehicles sold in an allegedly defective condition.
During the period January to September, 1966, the latest for which figures are available, 170 cases were investigated, and 105 vehicles were found to be unroadworthy. In a number of cases offenders were prosecuted and convictions obtained. Section 68 is enforced by the police. In 1965, 133 prosecutions were brought, resulting in 101 convictions. In addition, 32 written warnings were given.
For the future, provision is made in the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. Randall), which, if enacted, will empower the Ministry's tech-

nical officers and police officers, on production of their authority if required, to enter the premises of car dealers and inspect used cars on offer for sale, in order to ascertain that they are roadworthy. An Amendment introduced in Committee makes provision for Ministry inspectors to drive a vehicle for the purpose of road testing it. I will not continue to discuss the provisions of the Bill, because that would be out of order.
We shall continue to explore possible further safeguards. One suggestion which has been considered from time to time is that vehicles should be submitted for test on change of ownership in addition to the annual test. It is a requirement in some countries which have vehicle-testing schemes. But in the absence of evidence to indicate that the present legislative safeguards are inadequate, it would be difficult to justify its introduction here.
I should perhaps point out that the testing work and enforcement make very considerable calls on manpower. Such a requirement would not be easy to enforce, and those who are prepared to disregard the existing provisions and to risk detection and penalty would find means to circumvent it.
In the light of these factors, we feel that the best course is to press on with the extension of vehicle testing schemes by reducing the age limit of vehicles subject to annual test. Since 1st April, 1967, this has applied to vehicles three years old or older.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Derby referred to the need to ensure that the responsibility for the roadworthiness of a vehicle rests on the vendor instead of, as at present, on the purchaser. In so far as it is an offence to sell a vehicle in an unroadworthy condition, the responsibility rests on the vendor at the time of the sale. But responsibility for the safe condition of a vehicle in use rests, and rightly so, on the user. This is a fact which people too often forget. A vehicle can be a lethal instrument at the best of times. Badly maintained, it is like a gun without a safety catch. This is why it is illegal to use a vehicle on the road unless it or the driver is covered by insurance against third party risks.
The absolute liability placed on a motorist to ensure that his vehicle is roadworthy has existed for a very long time.


It has been included in the Construction and Use Regulations since they were introduced in 1931. Motorists are reminded of their liability in the Highway Code to which their attention is drawn each time they complete an application for a new driving licence. Only the user of a car can ensure that it is properly maintained. He can either do it himself or get a garage to do it for him. We know that many people do not do this satisfactorily. It was because it had become apparent that vehicles were not being properly maintained that the vehicle testing scheme was introduced in 1960.
Finally, it is worth emphasising that not the least effective safeguard is in the hands of the public themselves. Any person proposing to purchase a used vehicle in the circumstances mentioned by my hon. Friend is well advised to have it properly inspected before completing the purchase. Not being mechanically minded, I should hesitate

to purchase a second-hand vehicle without having somebody competent to look at it for me. The two motoring organisations, the A.A. and the R.A.C., undertake such inspection at relatively low cost, or similar arrangements can be made with a reputable garage. Before any person purchases a motor vehicle, I recommend him to ensure that he is competent to form a judgment on the vehicle and to realise that the responsibility rests on him when he uses the vehicle on the roads, or to get a competent person to exercise his judgment and to advise him properly.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having given me the opportunity of telling the House what the Minister and the Ministry are doing in this very important matter.

The debate having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the Sitting till half-past Two o'clock, pursuant to Order.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

Ordered,
That the Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business set out in the following Schedule be made:

Schedule

Standing Order 156A, leave out from 'that' in line 4 to end of line 8 and insert 'the Bill contains provisions authorising expenditure by a local authority which'.

Line 10, leave out 'General Grant, Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant'.

Standing Order 156B, leave out from beginning to first 'and' in line 7 and insert 'Where a Bill contains any provision authorising such expenditure as is mentioned in Standing Order 156A (Modification of practice as to charges on public revenue)'.

Line 15, leave out 'Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant'.

Standing Order 191, line 8, leave out 'General Grant, Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant'.—[The Chair-Mall of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Doctors (Car Parking)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport whether she is aware that doctors sometimes exceed the parking limit when attending patients and have to pay the necessary fine; and whether she will take steps to ensure that doctors are not fined when attending sick people.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I know that some doctors have been fined for exceeding parking limits but it has happened very rarely. The police exercise discretion in favour of doctors whose cars carry a badge provided by the British Medical Association and we do not think this arrangement needs changing.

Sir B. Janner: Will my hon. Friend consider the position further, particularly in view of the fact that doctors in Central London and places of that nature find

it impossible to take on National Health Service patients because they literally cannot assist them, particularly in maternity cases? Can he not do something about making it clear to the authorities that they should not fine people of this kind?

Mr. Swingler: This ought to be clear, but if my hon. Friend cares to draw my attention to any cases where discretion should be exercised by the enforcement authority and is not being exercised, we shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Peter Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman also consider the possibility of making more clear the position of doctors exceeding the speed limit when driving to emergency cases? Recently, there have been one or two cases of doctors going to emergency cases being fined for exceeding the limit.

Mr. Swingler: This again is governed by the exercise of discretion, which we think is the best way of dealing with it. However, if there are cases where discretion ought to have been exercised and was not, again we shall be glad to go into them.

Metropolitan Area (Synchronised Traffic Signals)

Mr. Berry: asked the Minister of Transport if she will extend the number of roads in the Metropolitan area which have synchronised traffic signals.

Mr. Swingler: Although there are some technical limitations, traffic signals are, where practicable, always synchronised. Plans are already being considered in conjunction with the G.L.C. and the police for the extension of computer control of traffic signals in the light of lessons to be learned from the experiment shortly to be started in West London, using a computer for the over-all control of some 70 installations.

Mr. Berry: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very helpful way of tackling the problem of moving traffic in London? There are many streets, such as Gower Street and Cromwell Road, where this would be beneficial. May I ask him if he could arrange an urgent talk with Mr. Robert Vigars to get some ideas on how to get London moving?

Mr. Swingler: We have been getting London moving. If there are any specific examples which the hon. Gentleman has of complaints about the lack of synchronisation, perhaps he will let us have them. As I have stated, this is already done wherever possible.

Road Safety Advisory Council

Mr. Webster: asked the Minister of Transport what is the composition of the Road Safety Advisory Council.

The Minister of Transport (Mrs. Barbara Castle): The Chairman of the Council is my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris), and the Vice-Chairman is Sir Alfred Owen. There are 18 other members drawn from all walks of life. With permission, I will circulate the full list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Webster: Why has the right hon. Lady replaced the distinguished and independent Chairman, Sir Alfred Owen, by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, and thereby muzzled this body from any form of independence?

Mrs. Castle: This body is not muzzled at all. It is still free to make its views known to me on the subjects with which it is dealing. What we have sought to do in this context—and I am glad to say that Sir Alfred Owen recognises the strength of this argument and has willingly agreed to continue to serve as Vice-Chairman—is to give a professional and scientific direction to the road safety work of the country through the development of my own Department's activities. We will seek the advice of the Council as the advice of laymen whom we want to express a view on our policy.

Mr. Lomas: Will my right hon. Friend give a firm assurance that she will consult the Road Safety Advisory Council when she is formulating her future policy?

Mrs. Castle: Yes, indeed we will. We have already referred to the Council the ideas which we have evolved for inclusion in the White Paper on road safety which I shall be presenting to the House before very long.

Following is the list:

The National Road Safety Advisory Council is composed of the following twenty members:

Mr. John Morris (Chairman)
Sir Alfred Owen (Vice-Chairman)

Mr. Wilfrid Andrews
Mr. Norman Capener
The Lord Chesham
Mr. Jim Clark
Sir Maurice Dean
Mr. Alec Durie
Miss Mary Grieve
Mr. Arthur Harby
Professor Richard Hare
Lady Janner
The RL Rev. G. D. Leonard, Suffragan Bishop of Willesden
Sir Herber Manzoni
Mrs. Marie Patterson
Sir Howard Roberts
Lt. Col. Richard Seifort
Councillor Henry Sturrock
Mrs. Bessie Whitworth
The Lord Willis

South Coast Trunk Road

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Transport whether she will give an up-to-date progress report on the construction and cost of the south coast trunk road.

Mr. Swingler: The estimated cost of constructing the new South Coast Road between Chichester and Ower is £23 million. In Hampshire the first stage, the Havant By-pass, was opened to traffic in November, 1965. Work should start on the second stage, the Farlington and Cosham By-pass, later this year. It is hoped that work on the section from Portsmouth to Southampton will start about 1970. A scheme to extend this road further westward from Southampton to Ower is included in the preparation pool.

Mr. Judd: If we are to enter the European Economic Community, will it not be essential to give increased priority to this important road?

Mr. Swingler: Very high priority has been given to this important road, as will be seen from my Answer. This involves a very substantial investment.

Mr. Costain: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that one of the bottlenecks on this road is in the county of Surrey? Is he making arrangements for the improvements to be extended in this area?

Mr. Swingler: I am not sure to what the hon. Gentleman is referring.

Mr. Costain: The bottleneck on the A25 is in Surrey. What arrangements are being made to improve the road in this area?

Mr. Swingler: I have given the schemes which are now in course of construction and already programmed, but, of course, the hon. Gentleman will realise that this is connected with other schemes at both ends in order to get rid of a bottleneck.

70 m.p.h. Speed Limit

Sir Clive Bossom: asked the Minister of Transport when a further report by the Road Research Laboratory about the results of the 70 miles per hour speed limit experiment will be published; and what period of the experiment it will cover.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): In June. It will cover the period from 1st January, 1966, to February, 1967, or March, if that month's statistics are available in time.

Sir Clive Bossom: Will the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that Parliament and the motoring organisations and other interested bodies will all be consulted well before the final decision is taken? Will he also look into the case for making the third lane on a motorway the fast lane with a higher speed limit?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman's last suggestion will certainly be borne in mind. There will be the usual consultations and I hope that there will be an opportunity for the House to discuss the matter before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that no speed limit is more frequently broken than the 70 m.p.h. limit in the fast lane? Is he aware that I have seen and reported instances to him, but that these fractures continue to occur?

Mr. Morris: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in a particular road and I shall certainly look at that matter again.

Mr. Webster: Was this matter referred to the Road Safety Advisory Council, and what advice did it give?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the original decision was taken and the matter discussed by the Council before I went to the Ministry of Transport. We are now awaiting the report of the Road Research Laboratory and at the moment there is no question of reference to anyone, because the report is not available.

Severn Bridge (Removal of Vehicles)

Sir Clive Bossom: asked the Minister of Transport why the cost of providing a service for the removal of broken-down vehicles from the Severn Bridge is not paid from the income obtained from the tolls paid by users of the bridge.

Mr. Swingler: The Severn Bridge Regulations, 1966, which provide for charges to be made at specified rates to pay for the special breakdown service, give effect to the provisions of the Severn Bridge Tolls Act, 1965. Section 7 of that Act reflects the principle that, as with other toll bridges and tunnels, it is appropriate that the very small minority of bridge users whose vehicles break down, often through their own fault, should pay for necessary breakdown services.

Sir Clive Bossom: As the Government are virtually getting the bridge free because of the tolls and as they recovered only £562 up to 4th February, this year, could not the minimum charge of £5 now be drastically reduced, as it is not fair to the motoring public?

Mr. Swingler: I understood that the hon. Gentleman was putting forward the view that all users of the bridge should pay for the breakdown service through larger tolls. That was not the view which was taken in the House during the discussions of the Severn Bridge Act, when it was generally agreed that those who broke down on the bridge should pay, through the charges, for the £10,000-a-year cost of the breakdown services.

South-West (Motorway)

Mr. Dean: asked the Minister of Transport whether she will now give more information about the motorway for the South-West.

Mr. Swingler: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the Answer given to the hon. Member on 25th January.—[Vol 739, c. 1474.]

Mr. Dean: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that a firm date for this project is vital to the West Country's economy? Can he at least give an assurance that,


when the motorway is completed to Edith Mead, there will be no delay in further progress?

Mr. Swingler: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that an aerial survey is being made which has to be assessed. This work will proceed as rapidly as possible, so that we have a result in the autumn. It would be wrong of me to say anything further until we receive the technical appraisal of the survey.

Mr. Bessell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present motorway plan for the South-West is no improvement on that first published by the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples)? Will he now consider extending the motorway from Exeter to Plymouth?

Mr. Swingler: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We have, of course, extended the plan for the M5 to Edith Mead and have decided on a road to motorway standard right down to the South-West. However, on the details and characteristics of this, there is nothing further I can say until we have made the technical assessment of the survey.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Would my hon. Friend consider making the South-West one of his priorities for road construction units, as money given to the area for road building will be useless unless there are people to do the work?

Mr. Swingler: We will consider that. My right hon. Friend has, I think, heard from my hon. Friend on this matter. We are anxious that the South-West, where a great deal of work will be done in the next few years, should have the most efficient organisation.

Motor Car Tests (Tyres)

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Transport when she will announce a specification of minimum standards for tyres for inclusion in the annual car tests.

Mr. John Morris: The requirements of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations as to the condition of tyres have to be strengthened before my right hon. Friend can consider when tyres should be added to the items covered by the annual car tests. Her proposals on tyre condition are being discussed with organisations concerned.

Mr. Barnes: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Would he not agree that, as it becomes easier for comparatively inexperienced drivers to acquire third-and fourth-hand cars—which is probably the tendency—tyre tests and other means of strengthening the annual car tests would be very welcome?

Mr. Morris: I agree with my hon. Friend. This is why my right hon. Friend has circulated her proposals. Consultations are taking place with the organisations concerned. A number of practical difficulties have been disclosed, but I hope that they will be resolved fairly soon.

Mr. Gresham-Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that this matter has been discussed now for about three years between various organisations? Could it not be brought to a head in the next few months?

Mr. Morris: I hope that it will be, very soon.

Wrecked Cars (Cannibalisation)

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Transport what plans she has to prevent wrecked cars, which are disposed of by people who are not comprehensively insured, from being cannibalised and offered for resale without any indication being given of the fact that they have been involved in a serious accident.

Mrs. Castle: Section 68 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, already prohibits the sale of a motor vehicle if it is in unroadworthy condition. Measures to strengthen enforcement of this section are contained in the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill.

Mr. Barnes: I compliment my right hon. Friend on the big steps which she has already taken in this direction. Would she not agree that it is desirable to make these arrangements completely watertight to stop all wrecked cars from getting back on the roads in an unsafe condition and not just those which have passed through the hands of the insurance companies?

Mrs. Castle: The essential requirement is that no unroadworthy vehicle should get on the road. I entirely agree. The measures of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend


the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall), are an important step in the direction of enforcement, but there is a great deal which purchasers of secondhand cars can do for themselves. They ought to have them properly examined before they buy them.

Mr. Carlisle: Does the right hon. Lady not realise that this is a very serious problem which gives rise to a great deal of criminal activity, not so much in the sale of cars in an unroadworthy condition, but in the buying of broken-down wrecks and their rebuilding into other cars? Would this not be best met by the compulsory handing-in of the log book of any car sold as a total wreck?

Mrs. Castle: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that the motor insurers have agreed that, from 1st May, when a total loss demand is made on a seriously damaged car, an entry will be made in the log book. It would be wrong to assume that they should be totally taken off the roads necessarily.

Mr. Spriggs: Does my right hon. Friend's answer mean that tyres are also taken into account when considering the roadworthiness of a vehicle?

Mrs. Castle: Certainly the roadworthiness of the whole car is taken into consideration.

Expenditure

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Minister of Transport to what extent public expenditure on roads will increase in the forthcoming financial year.

Mr. Swingler: Total public expenditure—which includes local authority expenditure—on roads in England in 1967–68 is expected to be about 25 per cent. higher than in 1966–67.

Mr. Bidwell: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind the urgent need to make better use of existing road services, especially in grappling with the problem of parking, even at the expense of assisting local authorities and the police more diligently to apply themselves to this problem?

Mr. Swingler: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is well aware of the need to solve this problem, even with the expanding

road improvement programme. That is why she is setting up a number of authorities and is providing more efficient traffic schemes.

Mr. Bessell: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that even these improvements are totally inadequate to meet Britain's transport needs today? Would he consider the possibility of floating public loans for the purpose of motorway construction?

Mr. Swingler: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has already dealt with that matter in the transport debate and on other occasions. The question must be related to spending on all other projects. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not say that what is being done is adequate, although a substantial increase is going on.

Humber Bridge

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport what design studies or other preparations are being made for the Humber Bridge.

Mrs. Castle: The design studies are the responsibility of the Humber Bridge Board which, I understand, is carrying out soil and wind tunnel tests.

Mr. Wall: Can the Minister say whether any design studies into alternative forms of crossing, such as a barrage or tunnel, have been made by her Ministry or locally?

Mrs. Castle: I do not think that any such studies have been called for. The Humber Bridge Board, which is particularly interested in this project, is satisfied with the broad concept that has already been adopted as a result of a consultant's survey.

Mr. James Johnson: Since the future date for building this bridge is bound up with decisions made by the feasibility study unit which is now working at Barton-on-Humber, can my right hon. Friend say when it is likely that this decision will be given to the House?

Mrs. Castle: No, Sir. I am afraid that without notice, I could not give a specific date.

Mr. McNamara: Would my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that when the


study is completed, the decision will not be shuffled from one Government Department to another but that we will be given a speedy reply?

Mrs. Castle: The Government are extremely interested in the study and in seeing its outcome.

Sir C. Osborne: Will the Minister remember that the trade flow is east and west, and not north and south, and that those of us from south of the Humber prefer improvements to the Immingham and Grimsby docks and better roads connecting with the Midlands, and that the Humber Bridge should be a secondary consideration?

Mrs. Castle: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's views but I also stand by what I have said repeatedly, which is that if and when the Government decide on massive developments south of the Humber, clearly the Humber Bridge must form part of those developments.

Thorne By-pass

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in the preparation of plans for the Thorne by-pass and the construction of a new bridge over the canal there.

Mr. Swingler: I hope the final plans of the Thorne by-pass, which will include a bridge over the canal, will be available shortly. The preparation of the draft Scheme can then go ahead.
Plans for a possible temporary bridge in Thorne are being discussed with the town council.

Mr. Jeger: Can my hon. Friend say what progress is being made with the promised aerial survey of the district?

Mr. Swingler: Considerable progress is being made. I am sorry that there have been inevitable delays because of getting the alignment with the Doncaster south by-pass correct. So there have been temporary difficulties, but we now hope to go forward with the scheme very rapidly, and we hope to establish a temporary bridge.

30 m.p.h. Speed Limit

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Transport whether she will review the operation of the 30 miles per

hour speed limit and its general observation.

Mr. John Morris: The 30 m.p.h. urban speed limit is among the matters under review by the inter-departmental Working Party on Speed Limit Policy.

Mr. Digby: Will the Parliamentary Secretary recognise that in terms of traffic and braking power things have changed a lot since the 1930s, and that we now have four speed limits, which are probably far too many? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to face squarely up to the fact that the limit has become virtually unenforceable, and that the police would agree with that view?

Mr. Morris: These are all matters that my right hon. Friend will consider when she sees the report in the summer.

Mr. C. Pannell: Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind that the 30 m.p.h. speed limit is too high for some of the heavy vehicles moving in towns at present, particularly the articulated vehicles and large trailers, and that he should also take a stern look at this with his right hon. Friend both ways?

Mr. Morris: I am conscious of the need for balance on this kind of issue, and these are the very matters which will be considered fully in the report which will be placed before the Minister for her decision.

Huntingdon By-Pass

Sir D. Renton: asked the Minister of Transport whether she is aware that there have been considerable delays in making progress towards starting to build the Huntingdon by-pass; and whether she will now announce the date when work is to commence.

Mr. Swingler: Choosing the best line for this by-pass has called for careful study of problems of engineering design and cost. A suitable line has now been agreed, and my right hon. Friend hopes to publish a draft Order to establish the route before the end of June. I cannot yet announce a date when the work will begin.

Sir D. Renton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that his Answer is to the same effect as the Answer I was given


to a similar Question in the last Parliament? Is he further aware that the situation in Huntingdon is absolutely chronic, and will he try to do something a little more urgent to get on with the job?

Mr. Swingler: I have not been able to check it, but I cannot think that the Answer is the same because the point is that this scheme is in the programme for 1968. Whether we get the work forward according to date depends on the question of land acquisition, and so on, but it is quite clear that my right hon. Friend will publish an Order before the end of June and then we shall get on with acquisition of land and other necessary things as rapidly as we can.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In this matter I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that when I go from my constituency into that of my right hon. and learned Friend's at the weekends the trouble is that I can never get out of his constituency because of the present situation?

Cromwell Road Extension (Hogarth Roundabout)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport if she will provide a temporary metal flyover, similar to that erected in eight days on the A13 London-Tilbury Road, at the junction of the A315 and the Cromwell Road Extension to relieve traffic pressure on the Hogarth roundabout.

Mr. Swingler: Yes, Sir. Arrangements are in hand for a temporary flyover at this roundabout.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will be appreciated, because this roundabout is becoming a tremendous bottleneck for Richmond and Twickenham traffic and traffic on the M4 to South Wales?

Mr. Swingler: We are proceeding as rapidly as possible. There has been a statutory objection to the compulsory purchase order, but we hope to be able to overcome this now.

Motorway, Coventry

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in the light of the social and environmental difficulties which will be caused by the projected motorway through residential areas of Coventry, she will consider alternative plans which will be submitted to her by associations of Coventry residents.

Mr. Swingler: When Coventry City Council, as the highway authority, publishes its proposals there will be a period during which objections can be made.
Consideration would be given to any alternative plans submitted with such objections.

Mr. Edelman: Is my hon. Friend aware that his reply will be welcomed, especially by those many people whose homes may be affected by this motorway?

A5 Road, Shrewsbury

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport why extensive works are still taking place at Oteley Island, Meole Brace, Shrewsbury; why large road signs erected last year are now being resited; whether she is satisfied that trees planted before Christmas, 1966, will not have to be removed; when she expects that all works will be completed; and whether she will make a statement.

Mr. Swingler: The widening of the A5 carriageway to four lanes east of the A49/A5 junction is necessary to improve safety and the smooth flow of traffic. This work involves resiting an advance direction sign but not the removal of any of the recently planted trees. It should be completed by the end of May. It is hoped that a further improvement at the bridge over Rea Brook will be completed by the autumn.

A45 Road (Speed Limit)

Mr. William Price: asked the Minister of Transport whether she will impose a 50 miles per hour speed limit on the A45 between Thurlaston roundabout and the Coventry boundary.

Mr. John Morris: No, Sir. A 50 miles per hour speed limit would not be appropriate here, but my right hon. Friend intends to impose a 60 m.p.h. limit and review this after a year's trial.

Mr. William Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that that will give at least some satisfaction? Does he appreciate that over 1,000 people have been killed or injured on this short section of road in three years? Will he give further consideration, not to a 60 miles an hour limit, but a 50 miles an hour limit which everyone, including the chief constable and county surveyor, wants?

Mr. Morris: I appreciate very much the concern of my hon. Friend. I suggest that this speed limit which we shall impose should do a great deal to reduce the number of accidents. Let us see how it works over a year's trial.

Mr. Rowland: While in favour of closing many intersections, in the light of his announcement about the 60 miles per hour limit, will my hon. Friend reconsider closing intersections on the scale proposed which is causing inconvenience and capital cost as a result to rebuilding on the A45 road between Coventry and Birmingham?

Mr. Morris: As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, this is a very difficult piece of road with a very bad record of accidents. My right hon. Friend will be putting forward proposals and there will be a full opportunity for anyone to make representations about any particular closure.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Radio Telephony

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport whether, as a measure to increase safety on the railways as well as improve the standard of information available to passengers, she will give a general direction to British Railways that they should take steps to introduce radio telephony between trains and stations.

Mrs. Castle: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) on 8th March, 1967.—[Vol. 742, c. 293.]

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Does that mean that the right hon. Lady intends to take no action in this direction? It is quite extraordinary that, in 1967, there is no

communication between trains and the stations from which they have come and to which they are going, unless they are within hailing distance.

Mrs. Castle: What it means is that this is within the responsibility of British Railways management. They have been conducting tests with the G.P.O. into the possibility of installing a public telephone service, but it would be very costly and it would be limited by the restricted range of reception from the few G.P.O. fixed radio stations.

Marplan Survey

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Minister of Transport why the Marplan Survey, the basic information of which was received by her Department in October, 1965, was not published prior to the publication of the new railway network.

Mrs. Castle: Because the report was not complete.
The Marplan Survey is concerned with three railway passenger services withdrawn in 1965. It bears no relation to the Basic Network Map.

Mr. Walker: Is the right hon. Lady aware that, although she says that it was not complete, her hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said on 23rd November:
The analysis of the Survey is now complete. A summary of the results will be published shortly."—[Vol. 736, c. 288.]

Mrs. Castle: The position is that the very detailed statistical analysis had to be done within my Department. The statistical work has now been prepared for publication, and it will not be very long delayed.

Mr. Manuel: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to the House that, where closures take place providing for alternative services, she will see that those services are provided?

Mrs. Castle: Yes, indeed. We already see that the alternative services are provided in accordance with the conditions of a closure decision. On two occasions, I have sent my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) to investigate for himself on the spot that services were adequate.

Heathrow Airport (Rail Link)

Mr. Berry: asked the Minister of Transport when she expects to announce the construction of the rail link with Heathrow Airport.

Mr. Swingler: The British Railways and London Transport Boards are seeking Parliamentary powers to build rail links, and a decision on this question will be made as soon as present studies have been completed.

Mr. Berry: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, in three years from now, the big jumbo jets will be coming in from America and other parts of the world, creating a volume of traffic which will be far too heavy to be carried by road? We must have trains by then. Will he look at the matter as one of extreme urgency?

Mr. Swingler: We recognise that it is an urgent matter, especially because of the build-up of traffic. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is also a very complicated and expensive matter, and many proposals, both conventional and unconventional, have been put forward. These have been investigated and will be reported on in a few months' time.

Basic Railway Network

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Minister of Transport on what criteria it was decided to exclude the grey lines from the basic railway network on the recently published map.

Mrs. Castle: The grey lines are those which, on present evidence, do not meet the requirements for a basic rail system described in paragraph 19 of the White Paper on Transport Policy, Cmnd. 3057. As stated in the foreword to the map, this does not mean that a decision has been taken to close them. Any passenger closure proposal will continue to be dealt with under the provisions of Section 56 of the Transport Act, 1962.

Mr. Galbraith: Why divide these railway lines into these two colours—grey and white? Why not let them both go through the procedure, and why, in particular, has the right hon. Lady decided that the Kyle of Lochalsh line, which was reprieved by my right hon. Friend the

Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), is now in the grey category, and is at risk again? Why is this so?

Mrs. Castle: The reason for having a distinction between grey and black is on the principles outlined in the White Paper. There is a clear case now for the retention of the black lines on the map. As for the grey, they will not necessarily be closed, but circumstances change, and that is the answer about the Kyle of Lochalsh. Circumstances may change which necessitate us having a look at the position before the line is included for stabilisation and development.

Mr. David Steel: Is the right hon. Lady aware that it was perhaps unfortunate that the grey lines were used to depict both those lines which had had services withdrawn and those which were still under consideration, and that this led to quite a lot of misunderstanding? I am thinking of lines on the borders, of branch lines which had been closed being in the same category as lines in respect of which a decision was still awaited.

Mrs. Castle: The grey lines certainly included some which were in the machine of consideration, but not those which had been closed.

Mr. Galbraith: Can the right hon. Lady say what changes occurred during the last two or three years which made her place the Kyle of Lochalsh line in the grey category?

Mrs. Castle: These are the very matters for which examination is required. I want to impress on the House that the black lines represent a new concept, namely, that we see these making up a network which should be stabilised and accepted for development. As the grey lines go through the examination period, some of them may be added to the basic network map. When one is talking about stability and developing two new and encouraging concepts, one has to examine carefully the lines which are included.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be inconsistent of the Government to close the Kyle of Lochalsh line if at the same time they were pumping money for development into the Highlands?

Mrs. Castle: Questions of future development in the area are among those


taken into consideration in the examination, and the views of the planning councils, and of all the Departments concerned, as well as of the T.U.C.C., are sought and taken into consideration with great care.

Uneconomic Lines (Local Authority Contributions)

Mr. Webster: asked the Minister of Transport what contribution she expects to receive from local authorities when railway lines in their area are loss-making; and how she proposes to enforce contribution in the event of disagreement.

Mr. Alldritt: asked the Minister of Transport what is her policy on the transfer of local rates of the cost of maintaining socially necessary railway lines.

Mrs. Castle: There is no question of my enforcing any contributions from existing local authorities. My policy was outlined in paragraph 27 of the White Paper on Transport Policy, Cmnd. 3057, and in the supplementary answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) on 15th March. For its detailed implementation I must ask hon. Members to await the legislation which I intend to introduce later this year. [Vol. 743, c. 405–6.]

Mr. Webster: In that case, where is the money coming from to meet these unremunerative services?

Mrs. Castle: If the hon. Gentleman studies my reply he will find that there are two categories of contribution visualised. One is the policy outlined in the White Paper—and I wish the hon. Gentleman would read the paragraph to which I referred—where I made it clear that as part of long-term arrangements new transport authorities might have this responsibility as part of an overall financial agreement between them and the Government. The hon. Gentleman must await the legislation for the details of that.
On the other question about existing local authorities. I have made it clear that if, in order to keep alive a purely local line, they wish to negotiate with British Railways for its maintenance out of their own funds, they are free to do so. Nobody is compelling them.

Mr. Alldritt: Will my right hon. Friend do her best to expedite the legislation which is important to Merseyside at this time? As she knows, we have already put forward certain proposals.

Mrs. Castle: I am anxious to expedite the legislation because I know that this new Transport Act is urgently needed to undo so many of the disasters which have resulted from the 1962 Transport Act.

Derby Workshops (Container Production Line)

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Minister of Transport what is the capital investment involved in setting up the container production line at Derby Workshops which she approved before 7th March; and what is the budgeted percentage return on capital.

Mrs. Castle: Before approving this project at a cost of £250,000 I satisfied myself that it was economically sound. It would not be appropriate to publish the detailed basis of my assessment.

Mr. Galbraith: That is a most extraordinary Answer. The right hon. Lady says that she has satisfied herself that it was economically sound, but that she will not tell the House what the figures were which enabled her to come to that decision. Why not? What were the figures?

Mrs. Castle: Certainly I am not prepared to do that. I satisfied myself from the Board's evidence that the new plant would produce containers to their specification more cheaply than outside suppliers and I certainly do not intend, within the overall financial target which is appropriate for nationalised industries, to give snippets of information which might benefit their competitors.

Mr. Park: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision to establish the container production line at Derby was received with great satisfaction in that area as recognition of the outstandingly high level of efficiency of the railway workshops there? Is she also aware that the continuity of work which she has guaranteed in this way will come as a tremendous boost to the morale and confidence of the workers in that industry?

Mrs. Castle: Yes, Sir. In my recent visit to the workshops at Derby I was very pleased to notice the very high standards of efficiency and I was glad to have been able to give this continuity of work on a strictly competitive basis.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that outside Derby rapid progress in containerisation is primarily welcomed as a vital step in the modernisation of transport and that hon. Members on this side of the House who represent railway constituencies in all parts of the country have complete confidence in the Board's financial management?

Mrs. Castle: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's words. Of course it is true that the railway workshops, not only in Derby but elsewhere, can and must make a considerable contribution to the country's economy.

Sir J. Eden: Will the right hon. Lady at least assure the House that the accounts of these workshops will be shown separately so that hon. Members can have the chance to identify the true costs involved?

Mrs. Castle: Yes, Sir. I have discussed with the C.B.I. the position which will accrue when we extend the affairs of the workshops into manufacture for outside purposes and not merely for their own concerns, and I have made it quite clear that the competition will be fair and that the workshops should demonstrate this by publishing information comparable mutatis mutandis with that which companies are required to publish. They have nothing to fear or to hide in this matter.

Mr. Galbraith: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the only conclusion which we can draw from her reluctance to give these figures is that there is not a proper return on the money involved?

Mrs. Castle: My conclusion is that the hon. Gentleman is so prejudiced that he hates to see a nationalised industry succeed in anything.

Mr. J. T. Price: Will my right hon. Friend and the House as a whole take note of the fact that, as soon as a nationalised industry begins to be successful and to produce the results which people demand, all we get in the House

is "knocking" from the other side? Will she resist all these blandishments, because I have been to Derby recently and the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is Question Time; we cannot have speeches.

Freightliner Train Terminals

Mr. Ronald Atkins: asked the Minister of Transport what further progress has been made in organising open terminals for freightliner trains.

Mrs. Castle: I am glad to say that all the freightliner terminals so far operating are handling containers brought in by private hauliers.

Mr. Atkins: I congratulate my right hon. Friend. Does she intend to open new terminals wherever there is sufficient demand for them and will she particularly bear in mind the need for container berths in the docks?

Mrs. Castle: Yes, Sir. Ten more terminals are to be opened by the end of this year. The Railways Board is already drawing up proposals for stage two of the freightliner terminal development and, in doing this, we have the needs of the docks very much in mind.

Proposed Closures

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Minister of Transport if she will conduct a cost benefit analysis of losses on railway lines proposed for closure in the future.

Mr. John Morris: My right hon. Friend already takes account of economic and social considerations before reaching her decision. In future, she will also have the advice of the special economic unit she is setting up in the Department. If its advice indicated that any additional studies were essential in a particular case, she would see that they were done.

Mr. Bidwell: While thanking my hon. Friend for giving that information, may I ask him to assure the Minister that the railway workers do not in the least mind the fact that she does not drive a motor car but rides a bike? Would he also convey this information to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg)?

Sir C. Osborne: Before the Ministry agrees to the closing of further lines,


would the Minister bear in mind the future industrial development of the areas concerned—areas such as North Lincolnshire—so that the Department does not close lines and then have to reopen them when these areas become fully industrialised?

Mr. Morris: My right hon. Friend certainly takes this point very much into account. That is why we now have the advice of the Economic Planning Council at every stage. This is done to ensure that not only present needs but future needs are considered. I therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that these matters are fully taken into account before a decision is reached.

Uneconomic Lines (Subsidies)

Dr. Ernest A. Davies: asked the Minister of Transport what steps she is taking to check the costings of British Railways in assessing losses on socially necessary lines for both closure and grant purposes.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Transport how she intends to assess the subsidy to be paid to the Railways Board in respect of each line to he kept open for social reasons.

Mr. John Morris: I would refer to paragraph 5(a) of the Annex to the White Paper on Transport Policy (Cmnd. 3057) from which it can be seen that these questions have been specifically remitted to the Joint Review of certain aspects of the railway industry established by the Chairman of the Railways Board and my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Ridley: Has the Minister considered the suggestion whereby the Government would hold the track and get competing tenders from various contractors to operate the services on the track?

Mr. Morris: There is no intention to denationalise the railways.

Dr. Ernest A. Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer will give some satisfaction; and that many hon. Members, particularly on this side of the House, think that costings in the past have been aimed rather at closing railway lines, particularly suburban lines, than at leading to their proper and more intensive use, especially in the suburban areas?

Mr. Morris: Costing has been one of the matters being considered by the joint review, and I can give my hon. Friend every assurance that the new unit will be set up to examine these very services which will rank for subsidy under my right hon. Friend's Bill, and ensure that there is effective machinery to make sure that there are the right kind of services, and that the right kind of subsidy is paid.

Railway Track (Route Mileage)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Transport what route mileage of railway track existed in October, 1964.

Mr. John Morris: The route mileage of British Railways open for traffic at 31st December, 1964 was 15,991 miles. The figure for October, 1964 is not readily available.

Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when he gets the railways down to 11,000 route-miles the Labour Government will have closed 50 per cent. more miles of track than were closed in the whole 13 years of Tory Government? Can he say why it has taken two and a half years for the Government to decide to put a stop to railway closures? Is it because they have been waiting until they had closed every line they decided needed closing?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman or his friends have tried to flog what I regard as a quite unrealistic view of this matter from time to time. In the last year of the Tory Government, approvals were given for the closure of 1,350 miles, and in the whole life of the Labour Government approvals have been given for only 1,300 miles. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have the information, the last Tory Government closed or gave approval for the closure of 460 miles in the month before the 1964 election—more than has occurred during the whole 2½-year life of the Labour Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Motor Insurance (Negligent Driving)

Mr. Weitzman: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in the discussions with the Motor Insurance Bureau with regard to claims for damages suffered as a result of negligent


driving; whether the Bureau will now give reasons where payments are not made under Note 6; and whether some machinery of appeal will now be instituted against decisions by the Bureau.

Mr. John Morris: In discussions with the Bureau about payments to victims of unidentified drivers, we have reached agreement in principle as to the desirability o an appeal machinery. Progress has been made on the general pattern of such machinery, and we are now proceeding towards settlement of the details.

Mr. Weitzman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the matters raised in my Question were under discussion during the period of office of the Tory Government, that a statement was promised two years ago about details for a solution, and that I put down a Question a year ago and got the same answer? Can we not get something really effective done on this seriously important matter?

Mr. Morris: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend did not have the same answer a year ago. I want to emphasise to him that agreement in principle has now been reached, and we shall settle the details, I hope, very shortly. I can give him every assurance. I know the interest which he has taken. I myself take a great interest in the matter. Since I have been at the Ministry, I have been trying to expedite this very important issue.

National Freight Organisation

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Minister of Transport when she expects to publish details of the National Freight Organisation.

Mrs. Castle: Later this year in the White Paper I intend to publish before I introduce legislation.

Mr. Walker: Can the right hon. Lady give an assurance that the White Paper will be published quite a good period of time before the Second Reading of her Bill? May I ask her if there is any chance of getting it published before the end of July or August so as to relieve the uncertainty which exists in the industry?

Mrs. Castle: I will not accept that there is uncertainty in the industry about this. I have always made it clear that I

want the House to have a full opportunity to study the details in an explanatory White Paper before this very complex transport measure is introduced.

Mr. Huckfield: Has my right hon. Friend consulted the Road Haulage Association about the proposals? If so, what is the result of that consultation?

Mrs. Castle: I have consulted the Road Haulage Association since I last answered a Question in the House on this matter. I am glad to say that its reaction was generally favourable.

Railway Stations (Taxi Cabs)

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Minister of Transport whether she will introduce legislation to extend the provisions of the London Cab and Carriage Act 1907, to cover licensed taxis plying for hire at railway stations in places other than London.

Mr. Gurden: asked the Minister of Transport if she will bring forward similar legislation for the provinces to that which applies in London, preventing restriction on taxi cabs at railway stations.

Mr. John Morris: No, Sir. There is no evidence that the present system is working unsatisfactorily.

Mr. Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that considerable disquiet and unrest have been caused in Birmingham by the attempts of British Railways to impose some sort of restrictions on taxi cabs? Would he not agree that it is undesirable for a nationalised industry to attempt to introduce restrictive monopolies of this kind?

Mr. Morris: So far, we have had very few complaints in the country generally, and they have been from taxi-cab owners only. We have had virtually none from passengers. The previous Minister asked the Central Transport Consultative Committee to investigate the matter some years ago. It considered that the arrangements worked well, with one or two minor modifications, most of which have been accepted. In Birmingham, I understand that there have been discussions between the divisional manager and the association, and there are hopes that


there will be an increase in the number of taxi cabs eventually which will be allowed to ply there.

Inland Waterways

Mr. John Wells: asked the Minister of Transport if she will extend the proposed period of reviews on the inland waterways from five to 20 years in order to encourage investment by private boatyards, boat hirers and similar businesses.

Mr. John Morris: No, Sir. Representations about this proposal are being carefully considered: my right hon. Friend is anxious to encourage activities, such as those referred to by the hon. Member, which could contribute to the prosperity of the future cruising waterway network. But these waterways are subsidised and no such subsidy could run unreviewed for 20 years.

Mr. Wells: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that no commercial investment by private investors in waterways has a write-off period of much less than 20 years, and therefore if there is to be private investment people must have a guarantee that their investment will last its useful life?

Mr. Morris: I am very much aware of the considerations which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but he will understand that public funds are involved here, and what one has to balance is the need on the one hand for control over these funds, and to aim on the other not to discourage the kind of investment which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I am very much aware of the point made by him.

Mr. John Wells: asked the Minister of Transport if she will publish a summary of the answers she has received to her circular asking interested parties for their views on the proposals on the inland waterways in the White Paper, Transport Policy.

Mr. John Morris: This would be impracticable in view of the extent of the consultations and the diversity of the matters dealt with in the replies. We are grateful for the response that has been made to the Department's inquiries; full weight will be given to the views expressed in the further development of waterways policy.

Mr. Wells: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to receive all the answers, and when the matter will be properly discussed, and whether there will be an opportunity for further debate in this House?

Mr. Morris: The question of a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Replies are still awaited from some local authorities and some representatives of sporting interests. We hope that they will be received soon. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the point which he has made today, and on other occasions, will certainly be borne in mind. The other day I went to Oxford to the Waterways Conference to acquaint myself better and further with the views of all the waterway interests.

Mr. Webster: Why all the secrecy? What is the hon. Gentleman trying to hide? Why is he keeping quiet?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman must be living in a different world from me. I am not aware of any secrecy. This is a normal form of consultation.

South Hampshire (Co-ordinated Transport Facilities)

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Transport what special studies on possible co-ordinated transport facilities she has initiated in the light of the recent Buchanan Report on South Hampshire.

Mr. Swingler: None, Sir. The basic decisions on the report must come first.

Mr. Judd: If we are to go ahead with this imaginative plan for South Hampshire, streamlined and co-ordinated transport facilities must he an early priority in the planning for it.

Mr. Swingler: I agree with my hon. Friend, but he will realise that very complex issues are involved here, and quite a long process of consultation with local authorities and several Departments must lead to the decisions on the basic issues.

Conurbation Transport Authorities

Mr. Awdry: asked the Minister of Transport whether, before presenting the Transport Bill to Parliament, she will publish a further White Paper setting out in detail her final proposals concerning


the constitution of conurbation transport authorities, their precise operating areas, the ownership of the assets, their financial accountability, and all their possible sources of income.

Mrs. Castle: Yes, Sir. I intend to set out in a White Paper my detailed proposals for conurbation transport authorities, including their constitution and financial arrangements. The precise operating areas, however, will probably be determined following the legislation itself.

Mr. Awdry: I am grateful for that reply. Is the right hon. Lady aware that many municipal transport undertakings feel that they have not been consulted nearly enough? Will she undertake that she will make no final decision until she has fully considered all their views?

Mrs. Castle: I have been at pains to consult them in considerable detail and, of course, I shall take their views into account.

Mr. Mapp: Will the areas of these proposed conurbation authorities embrace the whole of the countryside? If they are purely conurbation authorities, what will be the effect of the neutralisation of the rural countryside on their fare structure? Will it not be to lead to a substantial increase in fares?

Mrs. Castle: That is one the considerations which has to be studied area by area. That is why, as I have said, it would not be appropriate to try to define the boundaries in the main legislation. That will be done by Order under the Bill and as a consequence of detailed discussions with the areas concerned.

Mr. Peter Walker: When does the right hon. Lady expect the White Paper to be published?

Mrs. Castle: Certainly before the legislation and in time to give hon. Members a chance to study the details so that they can be fully informed in the discussions which will take place on the Bill itself.

Mr. Awdry: asked the Minister of Transport what estimate she has made of the effect on the level of bus fares and the frequency of services of the formation of new conurbation transport authorities.

Mr. Swingler: These are matters for which the authorities themselves will be responsible.

Mr. Awdry: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility that these new authorities with their very large staffs will in fact put up the general level of fares?

Mr. Swingler: No, Sir, because there are staffs now for the running of public transport bus operations. The difference is that by her plan my right hon. Friend is bringing together the staffs of the traffic controllers, the bus operators and those who are concerned with road planning in order that an efficient transport plan can be produced for the first time.

Mr. Manuel: In order to get a better frequency and an easier flow of services in conurbations, will the White Paper indicate any control of the present freight services within the conurbations?

Mr. Swingler: We are now discussing passenger transport authorities.

Mr. Manuel: I know.

Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend has put forward a plan for dealing with freight by the establishment of the National Freight Organisation.

Vehicles (Reflective Number Plates)

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Transport whether she has now completed her consideration of the advantages to be obtained from the use of reflector number plates on vehicles; and whether she will make a statement.

Mr. Lomas: asked the Minister of Transport (1) if she will give an assurance that she will introduce, within this or in the next Session of Parliament, legislation permitting the use of reflective number plates as an aid to road safety;

(2) when she expects her Lighting Working Party to report its findings on the value of reflective number plates; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. John Morris: The Lighting Working Party is still considering the use of reflective number plates and will make recommendations as soon as its study is complete.
I am unable to anticipate these recommendations.

Mr. Dance: But is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is entirely unsatisfactory, as it must be obvious to everybody that these reflector number plates will aid safety? Why are the Government taking so long to reach a decision? Surely we can say on the spot that these are valuable. They have been used in other countries to great advantage.

Mr. Morris: The Road Research Laboratory made a report on 12th January this year on these plates. The working party saw a demonstration on 29th February and this is the first item on the agenda at the next meeting on 9th May. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, once a recommendation comes to the Minister, it will receive high priority.

Mr. Lomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that, by the end of this year, about 40 million vehicles in the world will be equipped with these reflector safety plates, which is sufficient proof in itself? May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the Ten Minute Rule Bill which I introduced this morning, and hope that it will be given every consideration?

Mr. Morris: I am aware of the Bill which my hon. Friend introduced, as is my hon. Friend the other Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who has been in correspondence with my hon. Friend. I can assure him that, once a recommendation comes to the Minister from the working party, it will receive a high priority.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. James Dance, Question No. 26.

Mr. Ogden: On a point of order. With respect, my hon. Friend answered Questions No. 25 and Nos. 47 and 48 together. Question No. 65, in my name, is on the same point. May I be given the opportunity to ask a question?

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for the grouping of questions by a Minister.

Articulated Lorries (Reflectors)

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Transport whether she will take steps to make it compulsory for some form of reflector to be used on the sides of

articulated lorries in view of the fact that when such vehicles make a sudden turn their rear lights are at right angles to the road and are then invisible.

Mr. John Morris: The Working Party on Vehicle Lighting is studying ways of improving the lateral visibility of vehicles by requiring the use of side marker lamps or reflectors on shorter vehicles than those on which they are now required.

Mr. Dance: But is the hon. Gentleman again aware that this has gone on too long? Only the other day—he may be pleased to hear it—I was nearly written off, driving to my constituency, by nearly hitting the side of an articulated lorry which was veering to the left. Cannot something be done about this situation?

Mr. Morris: I should be very sorry if the hon. Member were written off. I would agree that suggestions for improvements have been made and it appears that side marker lamps are more effective. Tentative proposals have been made and the working party has decided that its members should now consult their respective organisations. I hope that a recommendation will reach the Minister shortly.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: As the hon. Gentleman said in answer to Question No. 25 that this body last met in February and will next meet in May, is not the name "working" party rather strange?

Mr. Morris: What I said was that the working party saw a demonstration in February and that, in addition to the great deal of other work which the body is investigating, the matter mentioned in the last Question would be the first item on its agenda. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this body is considering many issues.

Transport Users' Consultative Committees

Mr. Ronald Atkins: asked the Minister of Transport when she will be in a position to announce the reconstitution of the transport users' consultative committees.

Mr. John Morris: As my right hon. Friend informed the House on 22nd February, she will be consulting a wider cross-section of organisations in appointing these committees in future. The committee for East Anglia is the first to


have been dealt with under the revised procedure.—[Vol. 741, c. 1732.]

Mr. Atkins: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to be especially aware of the inhibitions which have tongue-tied many objectors at T.U.C.C. meetings and ensure that these inhibitions are removed so that such things as railway financial figures may be discussed?

Mr. Morris: There have been two matters of complaint in the past. One is that these committees should be sufficiently representative, and this was one of the aims of my right hon. Friend in broadening the representation on the T.U.C.C.s. The second was that there should be better representation on these bodies of the man in the street. As regards the functions of the T.U.C.C.s, my right hon. Friend is now considering this matter in connection with proposals in the new Bill which she will bring before the House in the autumn.

Motor Vehicles (Disqualified Drivers)

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Minister of Transport whether she will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to stop people from driving motor vehicles while disqualified, uninsured or without a licence.

Mrs. Castle: These are serious offences for which the law already provides adequate penalties. But I am discussing with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary ways of improving certain aspects of enforcement.

Mr. Tuck: In view of the fact that in 1965 alone there were more than 47,000 convictions for driving without a licence and more than 90,000 convictions for driving while uninsured—and the numbers have been steadily increasing over the years—would my right hon. Friend seriously consider introducing legislation to prohibit the sale of petrol from any petrol station until the driver of the vehicle has shown his or her driving licence and insurance cover?

Mrs. Castle: I think that that would be placing a rather heavy burden of enforcement on garage proprietors. I agree that we need to tighten up enforcement here. It is just that point that I

am discussing with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and steps are being taken.

Mr. Hogg: Is not one of the practical steps, according to the police, that could be considered to stop driving while disqualified the right of arrest for this offence when it is discovered? Is she aware that one of the troubles is that a person found by a policeman to be doing this can drive away without being stopped?

Mrs. Castle: Yes, Sir. I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. An Amendment along these lines was proposed in another place and we have accepted it in principle.

Right-hand Driving System

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Transport what studies are being made on the desirability of introducing a right-hand driving system, similar to continental practice, in this country; and how much she estimates this would cost.

Mr. John Morris: Studies are being made of the advantages and disadvantages of a change to driving on the right. Preliminary estimates show that the cost would be very high, probably about £350 million if 10 years' warning were given.

Mr. Wall: Are any consultations being held on this matter with the interested bodies?

Mr. Morris: I am not aware that any such consultations are at present taking place.

Motor Vehicles (Noise)

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made by the working party which is looking into the problem of noise from motor vehicles.

Mr. John Morris: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) on 14th March.—[Vol. 743, c. 79.]

Mr. Longden: Is not this a case of another working party which is taking an unconscionable time? Should not the whole lot be called shirking parties?

Mr. Morris: I cannot accept any slur of that kind on my right hon. Friend's


Department. I would say that the revised draft of the regulations has been prepared, and will be circulated to interested organisations for comment.

Oral Answers to Questions — PORTS

Container Berths (Seaforth)

Mr. Alldritt: asked the Minister of Transport whether she has yet decided how many container berths will be provided at Seaforth.

Mr. Swingler: The decision on the number of berths will be taken as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the main works can go ahead.

Mr. Alldritt: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, which will be very well received on Merseyside, may I once again ask for this decision to be expedited in view of the importance in the planning stage to know precisely how many container berths will be allowed?

Mr. Swingler: Yes, Sir. It is clear that this decision will have to be taken within the next few months. My right hon. Friend was anxious to ensure that nothing should hold up the main planning of this scheme. She therefore announced her approval of the scheme, and the main works will certainly go ahead from now on.

Mr. Heffer: Would my hon. Friend say precisely what he means by "the next few months"? Could not this decision be taken within the next six weeks? Is he aware that it is absolutely essential for the development of Merseyside that we be given an early reply? Is my hon. Friend also aware that the interests not only of Merseyside but of the country as a whole are bound up with this matter?

Mr. Swingler: This will not in any way hold up the development of the project. The decision about how many container berths there should be, whether there should be a grain terminal and so on, will have to be taken in the next two or three months.

South Coast Ports (Container Facilities)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Transport how far her recent decision on container facilities at ports

precludes the early authorisation of further berths on the South Coast, besides the one at Southampton.

Mrs. Castle: Any application for my authorisation of such facilities will, of course, be considered, but I am not at present satisfied that the early provision of further container berths in the neighbourhood of Southampton would he economically justified.

Mr. Digby: Will the Minister realise that one container berth should be able to handle a tremendous tonnage in one year? Will she bear in mind the importance of the Channel and the South Coast, because this is the approach to Europe?

Mrs. Castle: Yes, Sir. This was very much in our minds when we authorised the container berth at Southampton.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Rate Burden

Mr. Ridsdale: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 5th May, I shall call attention to the rate burden falling on householders in areas of little industry, and move a Resolution.

Social and Economic Development (Northern Region)

Mr. Bob Brown: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 5th May, I shall call attention to the social and economic development of the Northern Region, and move a Resolution.

Local Authorities (Direct Works Departments)

Mr. Fortescue: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 5th May, I shall call attention to direct works departments of local authorities, and move a Resolution.

Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order. I have been in the House for five years now—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House should not give undue significance to an innocent remark.

Mr. Lubbock: —and I have regularly been putting my name into these Ballots,


but I suppose I must be lucky in love because I have always been unfortunate in the Ballot.
I was about to ask, Mr. Speaker, if you would give consideration to the exclusion of names from the Ballot of hon. Members who have been successful on previous occasions, because it appears that sometimes "Lady Luck" has smiled on some hon. Members more frequently than on others and that hon. Members who have not been given the opportunity of raising questions in private Members' time would now be given preference in these Ballots as compared with those who have been successful on previous occasions.

Mr. Speaker: This is an interesting suggestion. I cannot, of course, comment on the hon. Member's love affairs, but rules for the Ballot have been laid down by the House and the House would have to change them. It is not possible for Mr. Speaker to change them. For the moment all that the hon. Member must do is to sine
Luck be a lady tonight".

Dr. David Kerr: To some of us the point raised by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) commends itself. I wonder whether it would be in order for the matter to be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure.

Mr. Speaker: It is always in order for an hon. Member, troubled about a point of procedure, to write to or to speak to members of the Select Committee on Procedure who are examining from time to time all kinds of problems of procedure. There is nothing to prevent an hon. Member from doing so.

Sir S. McAdden: Before you are led away on to speculating about the chances of luck in the Ballot, Sir, would you bear in mind, since you are giving consideration to this matter, that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is a representative of a minority party in the House, but is given adequate opportunities to put supplementary questions?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member, even with the best will in the world, must not question the selection made by M r. Speaker.

PROCEDURE

3.36 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed to the debate I should perhaps suggest the order in which it will take place.
The first Motion is formal. I think that it would be the desire of the House that the debate on the contingent Motion printed in italics about the proposals contained in the four Reports from the Select Committee on Procedure shall be taken together with all the other Motions on procedural matters, Nos. 2 to 8 inclusive which hon. Members will find on their Order Paper. Amendments to Motion No. 5, Members' speeches, may also be discussed but I have not selected any of them.
I add another note. I shall not be able to call everyone to join in today's debate. The shorter the speeches, the more Members I shall be able to call. I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will respond to the appeal I am making.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: On a point of order. On the matter you have just explained to the House, as there is no Motion on the Order Paper suspending the rule, if the debate on the first Motion runs up to 9.30 p.m. I assume that it will be possible to put the other Orders, which are separate Orders, and that the House may agree them provided that there is no difference of opinion, but if there is a difference of opinion, even though you have not selected the Amendments, I take it that these Orders cannot be put?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member has stated the position quite clearly. When we reach half-past nine we can take at half-past nine any of the Orders which are agreed unanimously by the House, but if objection is taken to any of them after half-past nine then they cannot be put today.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Further to that point of order. The eighth Order in the name of two of my hon. Friends and myself is not in the name of a member of the Government. I wonder whether, if the Government objected to the taking of that Order, it might not be possible even to move it.

Mr. Speaker: The Motions on the Order Paper can be moved at the breaking hour of half-past nine. If they are carried, if no objection is taken, they will be passed in the ordinary way. If objection is taken after half-past nine, they cannot be voted on.

Mr. Charles Pannell: For the benefit of the House, and because you may not be in the Chair all the time, Mr. Speaker, I presume that this will be a wide-ranging debate over the whole field of procedure and that the Chair will not rule too stringently about these Orders. What we are discussing is necessarily better than what we have already or could be done in another way.

Mr. Speaker: It is quite clear that anything on the Order Paper and the whole question of procedure is the basis of the debate today.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Time is short. Dame Irene Ward, on a point of order.

Dame Irene Ward: My point of order is this, Mr. Speaker. On the main Motion which is to be put to the House by the Leader of the House, may we be told whether there has been any consultation between yourself and the right hon. Gentleman, as it does involve yourself considerably?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

3.40 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): I beg to move,
That the First, Second, Third and Fourth Reports from the Select Committee on Procedure be now considered.
At the end of the debate, I shall move separately the more detailed Motions which the Government are commending to the House so that we shall not have a restricted debate.
Since 14th December, when we last debated procedure, we have had no fewer than four further Reports from the Select Committee, of which the House is invited to consider three today—No. 2 on Standing Order No. 9, No. 3 on Methods of Voting, and No. 4 on the Finance Bill. The fifth, on Question Time, has been

presented but so recently that I do not think that the House can be asked to consider it today.
I know that the whole House will wish me once again to thank the members of the Committee for the energy which they have applied. Once again, I shall be able to show the Government's gratitude in the only way which the Committee appreciates, that is, by moving a string of Motions designed to implement a substantial amount of what it has proposed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I had thought—perhaps the House will correct me if it wishes—that we might get out of the way the first Motion, that the four Reports be now considered, taking that formally at once. The right hon. Gentleman would then move the italicised Motion.

Mr. Crossman: I thought that I had followed that, Mr. Speaker, but may I now move the italicised Motion in my name—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I have not made myself clear. Perhaps I may now put to the House the first Motion in the right hon. Gentleman's name.

Question, That the First, Second, Third and Fourth Reports from the Select Committee on Procedure be now considered, put and agreed to.

Reports considered accordingly.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that I am so clumsy. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now move the italicised Motion.

Mr. Crossman: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Reports from the Select Committee on Procedure.
I apologise to the House for the delay. I had said that the House would not be asked to consider the Fifth Report because it had been presented so recently, and I had gone on to express the thanks of the whole House to the Committee for its energetic application. During the course of my speech, I shall, in speaking of the Reports from the Select Committee, link with each of them the relevant Motion which I shall later move.
When these Motions are approved tonight, as I hope they will be, we shall have made another significant step forward, and there is more to come. I remind the House that we shall, as promised, be providing in this year's


Finance Bill the legislative proposals for abolishing the Committee of Ways and Means, as the Select Committee wanted us to do. To complete the record, it was only last Monday morning that we began the fulfilment of another of our commitments by moving the Second Reading of the Bill to prevent the interruption of our debates by Black Rod on more than one occasion in each Session.
Now for this batch. In opening the debate, I shall content myself with going through the Reports and the Motions one by one, explaining them to the House. The first change I recommend, which is Motion No. 2, is a minor, but quite useful, proposal which the Select Committee recommended in its Third Report on Methods of Voting. Undoubtedly, the Committee was right to consider how to save time on voting procedure. In a standard Second Reading debate, with a vote coming at the end, the taking of eight to 11 minutes to do what could be done in seven or eight may not matter too much. But during a Report stage the accumulated loss of time—not to mention the disruptive effect on the general run of debate—becomes serious.
Personally, I am glad that the Committee exposed itself, in imagination at least, to the full horrors of the electro-mechanical voting system propounded in the memorandum from the Ministry of Works, before totally rejecting it. Mechanical voting could save substantial time only if Members were permitted to press a button in a distant part of the Palace of Westminster and so save the six minutes which must be allowed in order to get back to the Chamber.
The Committee was surely right to reject this, if only because it violates the principle that the Chamber is the central and focal point of our activities. But, thank heaven, it was possible for the Committee, without this contraption, to devise a cheap and simple way of cutting down the time it takes to go through the Lobbies.
At present, we have a lapse of two minutes between the calling of a Division and the appointment of Tellers. When the Tellers are appointed, the Question is put a second time and only then does the actual voting begin. The Committee points out that up to two minutes can be saved if the Tellers are appointed when the Division is first called and begin

counting straight away. This is not only a practical, but an economical suggestion. As the Committee points out, the saving in time it produces will be roughly the same as that offered by the enormously expensive push-button consoles—I think that that is what they are called—which would have to be installed in the Lobbies. So we are getting the same result and not spending £45,000.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Am I right in assuming that there is no interference with the six minutes between the time when the Division is originally called and the locking of the doors?

Mr. Crossman: That is the whole point. We are preserving the six minutes. There is merely the extra two minutes, because there are at present two starts, or one false start and then a real start.

Mr. David Mitchell: Is it intended that the Question should be put a second time? This is an important matter.

Mr. Crossman: The Report proposes that, immediately the Question is put, the Tellers proceed and voting starts at once. This is the difference from the present system.
I come now to the main matter which I wish to discuss, that is, procedure on the Finance Bill, considering with it Motion No. 3. This is the second time that the problem has been tackled since 1964, and I want to thank the Committee for refusing to take "No" for an answer following the Government's refusal to adopt the 1965 Report. The House will recall that that Report, which was the first Report of the Select Committee, proposed to resolve the problem by dividing the Bill into two parts, one part to be taken on the Floor, the other to be remitted to a special Standing Committee. I know that this solution has its advocates in the House, but I am sure that the Government were right to reject it.
In view of this rebuff, the Select Committee was quite right to challenge us to say how the Government themselves would deal with the problem of the Finance Bill, and the response was given quite recently by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary in his evidence to the Committee. In this evidence he made no secret of the Treasury's preference—to


commit the whole Bill to a Standing Committee, with a timetable. But he recognised that this was an extremely radical step to take in relation to what he rightly described as "major tax proposals fundamental to Parliament's control of the Government's management of public finance."
The Select Committee was divided on the merits of the Chief Secretary's proposal. Some Members, particularly on this side of the House, were strongly in favour, some wished to revive the proposal for splitting the Bill, and some were reluctant to see any change at all. Now, the Select Committee has come forward with a most ingenious compromise which keeps the Committee stage on the Floor of the House and creates the conditions for a voluntary timetable backed by reserve powers—[Interruption.] There are no distant allusions to outside controls in that reference to backing by reserve powers.
In Standing Order 43(b) we have for long had a means whereby, if an overall allocation of time for a Committee stage can be agreed, a Business Committee may allocate it between the various parts of the Bill. To the best of my knowledge, however, this has never been used in modern times.
The Select Committee's unanimous recommendation is an adaptation of this procedure. If we adopt it tonight, proceedings on the Finance Bill this year should be roughly as follows. When the Bill has been published and studied, discussions will take place through the usual channels and a date will be fixed for reporting back to the House, thus allocating a fixed number of days to the Finance Bill, each of them assumed to end at an agreed time each night.
This purely voluntary arrangement will be backed, as I said, by reserve powers. Under these reserve powers, if a timetable agreement cannot be arrived at, or if, having been arrived at, it is not working properly, the Government will be able to propose to the House that the Business Committee shall consider and recommend a timetable.
In the Sessional Order I shall propose that two hours be allowed for that debate. I emphasise that the whole purpose of the scheme is to achieve an effective voluntary arrangement. If the

reserve powers contained in the Motion of which I have given notice ever have to be used, they will have largely failed in their purpose.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I hope that the Leader of the House will bear in mind that in entering into those voluntary arrangements there are three parties —the Government party, the official Opposition and the Liberals. We would wish to be consulted about the voluntary timetable.

Mr. Crossman: I shall certainly bear that point in mind. It is a matter that is borne in mind.
Having looked at the policy which the Select Committee proposes, and which I ask the House to accept as a Sessional experiment, I turn my attention to the Report and the major reform outlined by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. I am aware that this is an issue where unanimity is difficult to obtain. Nevertheless, it is my impression that a very large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have come to the conclusion that the biggest single method of relieving the House from the boredom that afflicts it each summer, the one reform which would certainly revive our vitality and improve the standard of our debates, would be to lift the dead financial weight which cumbers the Floor of the House for so many weeks of the summer and move it bodily upstairs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I did say, "a large number of hon. Members", but unanimity is hard to achieve.
I must add that in the Government's view this radical suggestion for moving the Committee stage of the Finance Bill upstairs should not be considered in isolation, but as part of the overall reform of our whole Public Bill procedure. I remind the House that in the major report which the Select Committee has promised us this summer we are due to receive its considered conclusions on this whole issue, including the time-tabling of Public Bills in Committee. However anxious one is to relieve the pressure on our time which the Committee stage of the Finance Bill now imposes after the Whitsun Recess, I personally find it hard to deny the argument that, in view of its key importance, the Finance Bill should not be the first but one of the last measures to be submitted to any


experiment in upstairs timetabling which the House may adopt.
I now turn to the Second Report, which deals with Standing Order No. 9, Urgent and Topical Debates, and to the fourth notice of Motion in my name. Out of all the Select Committee's proposals I can only recommend that one—a very minor one—should be adopted today. The Motion standing in my name gives effect to the proposal that the present average time of 16 days between the selection of the topic for a Private Member's Motion and the debate on it should be reduced to nine days.
Although, under my Motion, the arrangement for balloting for these Motions is unchanged—that is, the ballot will take place in the House about 16 days before the day of debate—the successful Member will now be able to wait until nine days before the day of the debate before notifying his subject. I am sure that the House will welcome this minor improvement.
But what about the Select Committee's main proposals for topical and urgent debates? They may be summarised as follows: (i) the very considerable changes it suggests in the operation of Standing Order 9; (ii) the four half-days out of the 29 Supply days for short notice debates selected by the Opposition; (iii) the extension of Friday sittings to allow two debates of three hours; and (iv) the selection by Mr. Speaker each week of an evening Adjournment subject to be debated for two hours.
Anyone who bothered to read the evidence which the Government Chief Whip and I gave to the Select Committee will know that we are in no way opposed in principle to any of the suggestions. There is no question, as The Guardian suggested last Saturday, of our asking the House to reject any or all of them tonight. What I am urging is that, having discussed them and considered their merits, we should postpone final decision about them until we can see them alongside the Select Committee's overall proposals for the reform of Public Bill procedure. That is my short reply to those who have put down Motion No. 8 on the Order Paper.
I know that some of my hon. Friends behind me will find this approach much too cautious. The other day, for example, I read a column by my hon. Friend the Member. for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand)—

I think that I used to write that column myself—in which he wrote that reforms of the timetable are of value only if the time they save is made available to backbenchers. He added:
If this time is stolen by the Government the reforms are of no value at all".
I wonder whether my hon. Friend will agree, on reflection, that that is a somewhat one-sided comment. I am the last person to deny the rôle either of the Opposition or of the private Member in the House, but the Government also have their rights to a fair share of time. Moreover, during this century, although central government has grown much more powerful, the proportion of Parliamentary time allocated to Government legislation has not increased. In 1906, the proportion was 57 per cent.; in 1938, it was 40 per cent.; and in 1964–65, it was 44 per cent. The year 1906 was one of great change and a big legislative programme and so was 1964–65. The striking fact is that more of the time was given to Government legislation then than now, so that although there is an enormous increase in the power of Government the allocation of time to them has not increased proportionately.
That is seen to be even more striking when one looks at the volume of legislation, which grew from 355 pages in 1906 to 995 pages in 1938 and 2,961 in 1964–65. Even if the amount of Government legislation has increased, the time we spend on it has not increased proportionately. That is why I want to emphasise that it is not my aim to cut down the amount of time we spend discussing legislation. My main concern is to see that we use it more profitably, and that any time we can gain by the reform of Public Bill procedure is fairly shared between the Government, the Opposition and the private Member.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: How long did the House of Commons sit in 1906? We should know that in order to get the comparison right.

Mr. Crossman: I have not the figures, but we know that at that time being a Member of Parliament was wholly a part-time occupation, which it is not now. What we are considering is not the absolute number of days, but the proportion of the time we allocate between the three factors—Government, Opposition and


private Members. My contention is that in our procedures we must get the balance right between those three.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: In the percentages the right hon. Gentleman has given us, he is presumably referring only to time spent in the Chamber and not the laborious days and nights spent on Committee stages of Government legislation upstairs.

Mr. Crossman: I should be surprised if the hon. Gentleman found that Committee stages were any less prolonged then than they are now.
Because of the desire to get the balance right, I urge that we should consider together the two Reports—the one on Standing Order No. 9 and the new one that we are promised on Public Bills. In almost all these procedural matters the problem is one of timing and balance —how to find enough time for all the topics we want to debate and all the legislation we want to pass, and how to balance the allocation of our limited time between the Government, who—to be honest—will always want more time for legislation; the Opposition, who—if we are to be equally honest—will always want more time to criticise the Government in debate; and the private Members, who want more time for their Motions and Bills.
I am convinced that further development of the Second Reading Committee procedure—one of our strikingly successful innovations—with radical reform of the whole procedure on Public Bills, including the Finance Bill, could relieve the pressure on the Floor of the House, enabling us to have more debates of the kind we want and fewer all-night sittings.
That concludes my comments on Standing Order No. 9—

Mr. Stanley Orme: Before my right hon. Friend leaves Standing Order No. 9, I wish to tell him that there is a great deal of support on this side of the House for its rapid abolition. Can he give an assurance that we shall be able to discuss it before the Summer Recess and, I hope, amend it?

Mr. Crossman: I wish I could, but it depends on the Select Committee. I

assure my hon. Friend that the moment it presents its report we will consider it urgently. I shall give it high priority as soon as it is presented. But I cannot give the exact time, whether before or after the Summer Recess.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members would rather have more time to take part in the activities of Specialist Committees than have more time made available for debates?

Mr. Crossman: I am coming to that, but I want now to refer to the Motion on the First Report, dealing with the times of sittings. This Motion is No. 5 on the Order Paper and puts forward an alternative to the proposal for shorter speeches in paragraph 8 of the Report.
I am certainly not going to prolong this speech by dilating on the case for shorter speeches. We all know that appeals made by you, Mr. Speaker, for voluntary self-discipline are rarely heard by those to whom they most glaringly apply. If our debates are to be vigorous, and if hon. Members are to feel that they have a reasonable chance of getting a hearing, something more is needed than exhortation. It was this thought, I am sure, which drove the Select Committee to recommend that, with certain exceptions, back bench speeches should be limited to 15 minutes and that Front Bench speakers should be invited to limit themselves to half an hour.
I sympathise with the Committee's intentions, but I find it hard to persuade myself that this device could be right. It seems to me to divide the House into two classes of citizens, coinciding with the division between the Front Benches and the back benches and to have a dangerous rigidity. It could be hard on a back bencher leading for the Opposition, for example, on a particularly contentious Private Bill, or concerning himself with an Order in Council.
After considerable thought, I believe that my proposal will be more flexible. In effect, it relies on the Chair rather than on any arithmetical formula to protect us against our competitive prolixity. I realise that my Motion is drafted in very general terms and that it would lay a heavy burden on the Chair unless we were prepared to limit


that burden as far as possible. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it would be helpful to the House if, with your permission, I were to convey to hon. Members the indication you have kindly given me of the way in which you would exercise this discretionary power if it were vested in you.
As I understand, you would think it appropriate to use it only in major debates and then only if it were apparent to the Chair that many more Members wished to speak than could normally be fitted in. On such an occasion, you might indicate at the start of the day that, for a given period—one, two or even three hours—speeches should be limited to, say 15 minutes, or to a given period.
Finally, I emphasise that this arrangement should be regarded by yourself and by the House solely as an experiment designed exclusively to enable more back benchers to take part in important debates. If it is approved tonight, it will apply only for the remainder of this Session and we can review it along with our other Sessional experiments, including morning sittings, before making any permanent decision about our procedures.

Mr. Lubbock: Is not a distinction between the Front Benches and the back benches, which the right hon. Gentleman says is invidious, implied in the indication that Mr. Speaker has given of how he would operate these powers? If the period were to cover, say, two or three hours, it would be between five o'clock and eight o'clock, which is wholly time at the disposal of back benchers, with the result that Front Benchers and Privy Councillors would be excluded and could thereby speak for as long as they liked.

Mr. Crossman: I would not have thought that it would necessarily work out like that. What I tried to convey was the way in which you, Mr. Speaker, thought you would use your discretion. I would not have thought that this would have the disadvantage that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) suggests.
I want to turn now to the other main topic—morning sittings. I have no doubt that on his topic I shall be at the receiving end of a great deal of comment. So much the better. But, since morning sittings are an experiment, I believe that

they should be judged at the end and not in the middle of the experiment. I shall not myself attempt to evaluate their success now, but I think that one of two interim comments might be to the convenience of the House.
In the first place, it seems to me that we are all learning a great deal from the experiment. Even those who opposed it will, I think, agree that a great deal of business which might otherwise have taken a lot of time late at night has been dispatched quite expeditiously during the course of morning sittings. We who supported them, on the other hand, should admit that experience has shown deficiencies which should be removed. For example, I am already prepared to give to the critics of Monday morning sittings a substantial part of their case.
I also feel bound to say a special word about the strain morning sittings have imposed and are imposing not only on you and your Department, Mr. Speaker, not only, I may add, on the Press Gallery, but virtually on the whole staff of the House of Commons. It is now clear that, whatever the future of morning sittings, the pressure on the House of Commons staff can only be relieved by a policy of vigorous recruitment, to which the Services Committee is addressing itself with every kind of urgency.
The only other point I wish to refer to is Ministerial statements in the morning. In all good faith, when I was moving the Motion on procedure last December, I gave the assurance that morning statements would be of only "secondary importance". Precisely because that assurance was given in good faith, I have been deeply distressed by the fact that, on at least two occasions, hon. Members have expressed violent indignation because they were convinced that I had transgressed this assurance.
I have considered the matter very carefully and have now come to the conclusion that the warning given to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), as soon as I had given the assurance, was fully justified. The attempt to divide Ministerial statements into two classes—important and controversial statements worthy of 3.30 and statements of secondary importance relegated to the morning—is untenable. For the rest of the Session, I propose to substitute a new


and, I hope, more satisfactory definition of what we had in mind when we introduced the Ministerial statements in the morning.
The aim was twofold. First, to reduce the delay at 3.30 before we reached the main business caused by Ministerial statements. Secondly, to reduce the number of occasions on which a substantial development of Government policy is announced by Written Answer not susceptible to questioning in the House. I believe that the House will agree with me that, in most cases, our morning statements have served both these two useful purposes. They have reduced both the log jam of statements at 3.30 and the number of important pronouncements which would otherwise have been buried in Written Answers.
I am hopeful that, in the light of our experience, the House will now agree to the following definition. Provided that due notice is given—by tabling 48 hours before—Ministerial statements should be permitted to be made in the morning unless they are of special importance and urgency. And since it is our aim to ensure that a Ministerial change of policy is open to question and answer, I shall make every effort, in the timing of these statements, to ensure that interested Members are aware of them.

Mr. J. T. Price: Could my right hon. Friend extend this generosity a stage further to exclude from these blanket provisions Monday mornings? Even if one has 48 hours' notice of an important statement, about 90 per cent. of hon. Members do not live in London.

Mr. Crossman: If my hon. Friend will read what I have said, he will see that I am aware of the fact that a number of statements are not suitable for Monday morning sittings, for the reason he himself has given. I shall be careful, in timing the statements, to make sure that the relevant hon. Members not only know of them, but have a reasonable chance of attending when they are made.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman thinks this new definition of statements of special urgency and importance will be any more tenable than the previous definition.

Mr. Crossman: I hope that the House will accept that I am trying in good faith to make this new procedure work. I hope that I shall not have cases in which Members will feel that the procedure is being abused. I shall try to ensure that it is not abused. I think that the value of this procedure will be increasingly felt.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the strain on the servants of the House. It strikes me that leaving this for extra recruitment through the Services Committee is not facing up to the urgency of the matter. The promise given to the servants of the House was that morning sittings would mean that we would finish earlier, and it has not been kept. The strain really is serious. There is no certainty that the right hon. Gentleman can get recruits.

Mr. Crossman: I will certainly consult with the Services Committee on this, but my impression is that recruitment is the urgent factor now. We are under-staffed here and with more staff relaxations can be made.
I now turn to the last two Motions standing in my name, Nos. 6 and 7, both of which deal with Specialist and Select Committees. I hope that No. 6 need not detain us long. It fulfils a pledge which I made to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), during the proceedings on the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill, when he urged the desirability of a Select Committee. I have no doubt that this Committee will become one of the really important Committees of the House.
Motion No. 7, which gives the Science and Technology Select Committee power to appoint sub-committees, arises directly from the debate that we held recently on the "Torrey Canyon" and the Government Motion that we passed referring the problems of coastal pollution to this new Specialist Committee. Since the Committee is already deeply engaged in the study of nuclear reactors, it became clear that it could not carry out this new inquiry without a strengthening of its membership, and recourse to subcommittees.
Though I fancy that no one will oppose Motion No. 7, it is possible that doubts will be voiced this afternoon about the


practicability of extending the number of our specialist and their sub-committees much further unless we can be sure of recruiting the Clerks necessary to staff them. This is a highly relevant warning. Already, before we created the Departmental Committee on Agriculture and the Specialist Committee on Science and Technology, we had not got the full complement of Clerks that we are permitted and there were insufficient to carry all the burdens imposed upon them. Since then we have created three new Committees.
In order to man our new Committees, we were forced to cut back the manpower that we had allocated to the Estimates Sub-Committee, with consequent detriment to its work. I shall have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that if he catches your eye, we shall hear more about this from the Chairman of Estimates. But I feel that it is my responsibility, as Leader of the House, to warn Members tonight that the function of a Clerk to a Select Committee is both highly responsible and highly specialised, and that staff shortages cannot be plugged by bringing in civil servants from Whitehall. If we want to expand our Specialist Committees next Session—and I very much hope this is the will of the House—then we must take urgent steps to ensure the recruitment of senior Clerks to man them.
There is another suggestion I should like to put to the House. Our two new Committees have each made a vigorous start, and encouraged no doubt by the precedent that they are setting, the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries is also launching an important new initiative.
The spirit of inquiry, without which a revival of Parliamentary control of the Executive cannot be achieved, is making itself felt in Whitehall. But how is all this inquiry to be channelled constructively? How, for example, can unneccessary overlaps be avoided between the two new Specialist Committees and the Estimates Committees which are roughly their opposite numbers? In the case of the Estimates Committee, a Steering Committee exists to plan the division of work.
Surely the time has come when we should have a steering committee composed of the Chairmen of Public Accounts, of Estimates and of the new

Specialist Committees. In addition to surveying the ground to be covered, and preventing overlaps, this Steering Committee could fulfil a very useful task in co-ordinating practice with regard to two new powers which have recently been given by Parliament, the power to employ outside experts and to travel abroad. Until now there has been virtually no pooling of views or experience between the various Committees on the use to be made of these two important powers.
I have dealt with my seven Motions, and in so doing it seems that I have given what amounts to a mid-term progress report on the reforms that we are seeking to carry through. They all seem to be thoroughly useful and to justify the claim that I made in our last debate on procedure, that if they are taken together, worked on and used to the full they can give us the biggest advance that we have made in Parliamentary reform since 1945. I would record that they have two weaknesses. First of all, they are piecemeal, and, secondly, a number of them—morning sittings, short speeches, our two Specialist Committees—are sessional experiments, which will lapse in the autumn.
It is this which gives special importance to the final report on which the Select Committee is now at work. That will be the climax of its work, the report in which it treats our procedures as a whole and give us its overall picture of how the reformed House of Commons, which it envisages, will function, particularly in the realm of Public Bill procedure. When we have that report; when we put it alongside the report on S.O.9; when we can consider both in relation to the problem of morning sittings; then I believe that we shall be in a position to move from a number of variable but piecemeal and sessional experiments, to the shaping of a balanced procedural framework, adapted to the needs of the mid-20th century.
In saying this, I would leave the House with one further thought. Parliamentary reform, if it is to be thorough and pervasive, cannot be limited to a single House. I accept the need for the reform of Parliament as a whole—not reform in compartments, modernising the House of Commons in one compartment and reforming the other place in another. In the debate which took place there last


week, I notice that my colleague, the Earl of Longford, used a question which summed up his view and which sums up my view of this problem, too.
No real progress
the author stated,
can be made in clarifying or reforming the relationship between the Executive and Parliament until Parliament is looked at as a whole and not just the House of Commons".
There was a reference in our last election manifesto to this problem, and as the Prime Minister made clear, in answer to a Question yesterday, the Government have nothing at present to add to that. Moreover, if I said any more on this topic I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that you would recall me quickly within the bounds of order.
Let me conclude by thanking, on behalf of the whole House, a Committee which has a splendid record of achievement behind it, but from which, I sincerely believe, the best is yet to come.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I will try to be as short as possible, but I must begin with some general points. I am very glad that this debate has taken place at last. The Select Committee on Procedure works quite hard, and with reasonable amity. We try to discharge the obligations laid upon us with celerity and diligence. I hope that the Chairman agrees with me. I sometimes feel that it would be better if our Reports could be dealt with by the House more speedily.
Today we are asked to take note of four Reports. There are Reports on Times of Sittings of the House, printed on 3rd August 1966, Standing Order No. 9, printed on 20th December 1966, Methods of Voting, printed on 20th December 1966, and The Finance Bill, printed on 9th March 1967.
I accept that there is some interlocking between these Reports and their subject matter, but I would hope that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to arrange in future shorter and more specific debates sooner. We will be in some difficulty at the end of today, because we are talking about so many different topics.
Let me now deal with the approach to these procedural matters by my col-

leagues and myself. We feel, first of all, that these are House of Commons affairs, not party affairs. We have a free vote in the Select Committee, and we have a free vote here on the Floor of the House. I have always accepted the proposition that if there is a major matter, a major change, it may be necessary for the Government to get it through in the usual way, but in the kind of cases that we are discussing today there ought to be a free vote.
Secondly, we are ready and willing to accept changes if they are for the better. Changes made just for the sake of changing are probably ill-founded. I do not think that it will be easy to carry out this massive reconstruction of which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken. I think that he will find that he will have to adopt the piecemeal approach. It will be bit by bit, and we must try to improve our procedures in this way.
I agree with him that when we are considering these alleged reforms, we have to look at the effect of them upon a whole complex of problems—the relationship between the Executive and the private Member, between Government and Opposition, and relations between Front and back benches. Are any of the balances in these delicate and very important relationships likely to be affected?
Thirdly, we have to consider the effectiveness of Parliament as a whole, and the extent to which these changes will enable us to function more efficiently. It is very easy for people to run things down and to say that we ought to bring things up to date and so on. But criticism like that is valueless unless something better is suggested. The weakness of Parliament and the dangers and pitfalls and the threats, vary from year to year and from generation to generation.
On this I state my own view, and I do not bind any of my hon. or right hon. Friends to what I say. One of the main troubles is that the machine is overloaded. It is trying to do too much, and the figures which the right hon. Gentleman disclosed for legislation show that volume rather than quality appears to be the test and the objective. Secondly, we are falling into the danger of having too many Committees being chased by too few Members. We have Standing Committees,


which are essential to the legislative process. Last Session, 326 Members were appointed to them.
There are Select Committees on Privileges, Public Accounts, Estimates, Nationalised Industries, Procedure. Statutory Instruments, Services of the House, Science and Technology, Agriculture, and now on the activities of the Ombudsman. A new vogue is setting in of sub-committees of these various Select Committees. In addition, there are the party committees which, I think, hon. Members on both sides will agree, are a way in which back benchers can exercise certain control, sometimes salutary control, over Front Benchers. There are the extra-Parliamentary activities like the C.P.A. and the I.P.U., which are an important part of the Parliamentary scene.
What everybody must realise—the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip, party managers, and the rank and file membership—is that it is getting exceedingly difficult to man all these Committees. It is a real Parliamentary problem. I am the humble Chairman of a modest little sub-committee of a Select Committee. Each meeting we have not the faintest idea whether we shall get a quorum. If two Members turn up, we wonder whether a third will put in an appearance. On most of the Committees on which I serve it is a real difficulty to get a reasonable attendance. It is wrong to put our heads in the sand and to pretend that this is not a problem.
In addition to the staffing points which the Leader of the House mentioned, this matter should have an important effect on the times of sitting of the House. Some hon. Members may remember that Sir Edward Fellowes, who had great experience of these matters, went so far as to suggest that, owing to the proliferation of Committees, consideration should be given to the possibility of devoting one day to Committees. Instead of going on with morning sittings, we must think much more of making the existing Committees work better. I am not against this trend.
My complaint about some of the things which the Government are doing is that the specialised Committees are not specialised enough. Their remits are much too wide. I should like to see smaller Committees with smaller topics

or more limited topics to deal with. I am not against the trend, as long as there is sufficient time to enable people to play an effective part.
I come now to the Motions. The first Report dealt with morning sittings. I disagreed with it. The proposal for morning sittings was carried only by eight votes to seven in the Select Committee. What the Report recommended was considerably better than what the Government did. It recommended a 10.30 start instead of 10 o'clock. It said that statements should be taken after Questions and not in the mornings. It suggested an extra quarter of an hour for Questions and rising at 9.45 p.m. when Government business permitted. All those were improvements on what the Government did. As some of us ventured to suggest would happen, morning sittings have been a rather dismal failure. The scheme was half-baked from the word "go". It was neither one thing nor the other.
I have a note of the times at which the House has risen on Mondays and Wednesdays since 1st February. The times for Mondays are as follows: 1.43 a.m.; 1.26 a.m.; 3.55 a.m.; 10.7 p.m.; 11.56 p.m.; 10.45 p.m.; 10.2 a.m. The times for Wednesdays are as follows: 3.10 a.m.; 10.0 p.m.; 10.13 p.m.; 1.32 a.m.; 11.34 p.m.; 1.3 a.m.; 12.12 a.m.; 12.5 a.m. The House has not been getting up any earlier on Mondays and Wednesdays. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Thursdays?"] If hon. Members will allow me to make my speech, I shall deal with Thursdays; that is a perfectly fair point.
As I say, the House has not risen any earlier on Mondays and Wednesdays, and a very great burden has been imposed on the staff. It is true that the Government have, by and large, succeeded in concluding Government business on Thursdays by 10 o'clock. But they could have done that easily. It is perfectly easy to arrange it without morning sittings. I do not think that the Leader of the House's new formula on statements is an improvement. It is damaging the efficiency and effectiveness of the House.
I am dissatisfied only to take note of the Second Report on Standing Order No. 9; Urgent and Topical Debates. I think that there is a view in all quarters


of the House that there should be more opportunities for topical debates. The Standing Order No. 9 procedure, or something like it, should not be used too frequently. It would be intolerable for the Government, and indeed for Members interested in other business, if we were, to have such debates too frequently, but I believe that the House misses an opportunity about once every three or four months. That is no reflection on the Chair because decisions concerning Standing Order No. 9 are governed by precedent. There is a tendency to have such debates less frequently. I expect that hon. Members have seen the figures in paragraph 3 of the Second Report. Excluding last Monday's debate, there have been only 15 debates under Standing Order No. 9 in the last 20 years compared with 102 debates in the first 20 years of the century.
The Committee suggested a new form of requirement, which is set out in the revised Standing Order suggested in paragraph 11 of the Second Report, "a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration." It is suggested that there should be relaxations of the precedents, and so on, and that
it should be possible to debate a matter which, although not of current ministerial responsibility, could be made so by legislation or administrative action, including intervention in overseas affairs. They consider that matters involving the ordinary administration of the law should be capable of being raised, though not any matter that is sub judice. They consider that in applying the rule of urgency the likelihood (as opposed to the theoretical possibility) of the matter being able to be raised in time by other means should be taken into account.
I do not think that if guidance of this sort were given to the Chair the floodgates would be opened. We should envisage the possibility of having about five debates a session of this sort. This would be an improvement and would enable us to debate important and topical matters. It would be very necessary that the Standing Order should provide that the Speaker should not give his reasons. If he does start to give his reasons, we shall again be bound by precedent.
Procedural changes have been suggested. There is the suggestion about notice being given to the Speaker before noon, with a let out for anything of

urgency which becomes apparent between noon and the sitting of the House in the afternoon, and that the debate should take place the following day unless the urgency is such that it should take place the same day. I do not believe that the Government would lose time as a result of this change, because if the business which was pushed back was controversial and therefore it was inconvenient for either side of the House to have divisions very much later than was expected, I am sure that the usual channels could arrange for that matter to be dealt with. This was a unanimous Report by the Committee, and I am not satisfied merely that note should be taken of it. This is not a matter as between the Opposition and Government. It is a matter for Members on both sides of the House.
The recommendation about the use of Supply Days is a matter for the Government and the Opposition. It is not unreasonable for the Government to say that they want to delay a decision on it. It is a good idea that the Opposition should earmark four half-days from their ration of Supply Days for debates at short notice. There should be safeguards—not more than one a month, and at least one clear day's notice should be given. It is not unreasonable for the Leader of the House to say that he does not wish to go into that matter now. It is a matter for further discussion. The other recommendation about Standing Order No. 9 deals with the rights of hon. Members, often irrespective of party allegiance, and it should be the subject of a decision today.
With regard to private Members' time, the Government's Motion about the Ballot has the purpose of reducing the period within which people can give notice. I am not clear about whether any action is to be taken on paragraphs 16 and 17 dealing with Adjournment debates. Those are matters for further consideration.
The Third Report on Methods of Voting was dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman. The idea of voting stations away from the Chamber was ruled out by the Committee for the reasons given. Therefore, we had to consider a pushbutton system in or near the Chamber. It was decided that it would be impracticable in the Chamber for reasons of space, and we came to the conclusion that,


in the Lobbies, it would not improve on the present system. It would mean delay, with people crowding round, and there would be great difficulties of supervision. We came down to the modest change which will save a certain amount of the discomfort involved in being herded together on our ordinary occasions. It will net save much time when there are two-line Whips. However, with a three-tine Whip, it will save a little time.
The Fourth Report deals with the Finance Bill. This is a very difficult matter. I agree that the Bill takes up a lot of time, but I am a traditionalist about the Finance Bill because, although agree that at Budget time it is impossible to give a judgment on the whole year—and that is why I introduced the regulator, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has adopted once again—it is good to have a comprehensive examination of the tax system and the Chancellor's proposals for the year.
There may be complicated debates on some Clauses. However, on examination, these seemed to be very much fewer than I expected. Everyone is affected, directly or indirectly, by most of the Clauses in a Finance Bill. We looked at the possibilities with the idea of seeing whether we could agree among ourselves on improvements. All my hon. Friends felt strongly that the whole Bill should not go upstairs. We took that view not only for the reasons which I have already given, but because, if a Finance Bill was in Committee upstairs, it would affect a great many of the debates in the House during that time. So we rejected that, although I admit that there are strong feelings in some quarters that it is the thing to do.
The second possibility was to divide the Bill. I have always advocated that in certain cases, by agreement, what are called the machinery Clauses could be sent upstairs. However, after hearing evidence, I am not sure that it would save as much time as I thought. Nevertheless, in spite of Treasury objections, I still think that it ought to be a runner in certain circumstances. There might be a Finance Bill so complicated and so much dealing with machinery that, by agreement, part of it could be sent upstairs.
The third possibility is to go on as at present. The fourth one is the idea of

a voluntary arrangement with safeguards. Incidentally, I think that the right hon. Gentleman was unwise to use the expression "reserved powers" with regard to the safeguards. There may be some misunderstanding, and it must be clear what we are agreeing to. Usually, there is a voluntary agreement of a general nature. We looked at past Finance Bills and came to the conclusion that while in 1952 and 1965, there were long, protracted debates, which some people thought were too long, otherwise, usually the Finance Bill has taken almost the same amount of time—seven, eight or nine days.
If I may give the examples of 1961 and 1962, what happened was that, after Second Reading, there was a discussion between myself and, in the first case, the Prime Minister and, in the second, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer about how many days the Committee stage should take. I said that it was a short, simple little Bill which we ought to be able to get through in not more than seven days. My opposite number said that it was a long, complicated and confused Measure which woud need ten days in Committee. We agreed to see if we could do it in eight, and in fact we did it in nine. We did not say before that it "shall be" this or that, but we watched what went on, and that is what happened.
In 1962, we were more precise and, I think, got into half days. I recollect that I said again that it was a short and simple Bill and that we ought to be able to get through it in, at the most, seven and a half days. The Opposition said that it would take eight and a half days. We did it in eight. Obviously, it depended upon a certain amount of flexibility and good temper on both sides. To start with anything that resembles a specific timetable is to invite people to make the arrangement fail. Therefore, it must be what is called a general agreement in the proposed Sessional Order, and not a specific one.

Mr. A. Woodburn: To make the matter clear, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to eight and a half days, it would be more correct to say eight and a half days and nights. That is the problem which we have been trying to solve, is it not?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I do not want to be drawn into discussing exactly how long the debates went on. I agree that we discussed this, and there was the idea put forward that a day should not go on later than 11.30. I would hope to do better than that and make it a convention to stop at 11 o'clock. However, there cannot be a system under which, if there is a sudden row, one can be absolutely certain that the debate will not go on. It depends on a great deal of give and take and on people being reasonable.
That is the arrangement which has worked. I think that it has been much less boring to most hon. Members than people think. Newer hon. Members' views are very much prejudiced by what happened in 1965, but, for an ordinary Finance Bill, I think that it would be better to continue in the way in which we have gone on before.
However, I accept that there is the danger that the general agreement could break down, and therefore my right hon. and hon. Friends and I felt that we could go so far as to agree to the safeguards. If, after two or three days, it becomes clear that the arrangement is not working and there is no chance of keeping to a timetable with reasonable hours of sitting, it should be possible to come to the House for a short procedural debate and then send the matter to the Business Committee, the definition of which is set out in the Order, for it to fix a timetable. I do not think that it will be necessary this year actually to adopt this procedure, but, on the basis of an experiment, I should be prepared to go that far.
One has to consider carefully preserving the rights of the Opposition to criticise the Bill and of other hon. Members to comment upon it, but this is a common sense arrangement, and I am fortified in that view because it was accepted unanimously by members of the Select Committee.
I come, then, to the length of speeches, which is a matter arising out of the First Report. I realise that it is a difficult problem. I know that very different views upon it are held by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. In the light of the communication which has been received from Mr. Speaker, in my own view, there should be no objection to a limited

scheme by way of an experiment for the rest of this Session. It does not raise any problems to do with Committee stages or private Members' time, but provides, on the occasion of major debates, when there is a superfluity of speakers, for a limited period of one or two hours for short speeches.
As regards the length of speeches in such a period, I think that five minutes would be too short. I have been prepared always to settle for ten minutes, though some of my right hon. and hon. Friends do not agree with me. However, to make a short speech requires more industry and more preparation. At our party conference, the mover of a motion gets 10 minutes, and other speakers get five minutes. People manage to cope with that and make their points within the time allowed.
It must be emphasised that this is suggested only for occasions when 50 or 60 hon. Members want to speak. On an experimental basis, it is something which would improve matters. That is my view, and has been for some time.
One very important point in this context is what should be done about giving way in the cut and thrust of debate. I think that Mr. Speaker should have some idea of "injury time" and, if an hon. Member has given way on several occasions, probably he will not count that time. If this is approached as a flexible arrangement on an experimental basis, the House should gain.
I have no comment to make on Motions 6 and 7, and I have tried to be as brief as I can on the other Motion. As to Standing Order No. 9, unless I hear something rather more satisfactory during the course of the debate, I will ask those who agree with me to divide on my Motion on that matter.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: On the question of the length of speeches, I can remember a selection conference at which I was selected from a national short list to represent Leeds, West. I was given 10 minutes in which to make a speech, and that was probably the most crucial speech of my life. I think that this is generally true all round the Chamber. I doubt whether many hon. Members were given more than 10 minutes in which to convince their parties that they


were the right men for their respective constituencies. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) that one has to put a great deal more industry into a short speech than into a long one.
I want it to address myself to the Leader of the House, if I might have his attention for a little while. This debate started with a speech that he made to the House on the question of televising our proceedings. He attempted to contrast what happened during the last century with what happens now, and he referred to what he regarded as the decline of Parliament. I emphatically disagreed with that speech. I thought that it got too much publicity for what I thought was a mistaken hypothesis.
During the 19th century Parliament was a different place. It represented a selective electorate. The great Reform Bill gave only 4 per cent. of the adults the right to vote. Working men never came to Parliament. They did not have the vote until the 'eighties. I therefore think that we have to judge Parliament against the background of a mature electorate, of the Education Acts passed since 1870, and of the great mass parties which we have now. It is impossible to compare parliament and its effect today with what it was during the 'fifties and' sixties of the last century, at a time when half-drunks came out of clubs, came down to Parliament, and on personal issues turned out the Government. Today we are better educated and better mannered. More Members want to speak, and they speak more intelligently. Instead of there being a couple of professional gladiators who entertain here night after night after night, more Members want to take part in the debates, and it is against that background that we should judge Parliament.
Last week's Budget was a classic example of how Parliament has not come on. We had an hour and a half speech from the Chancellor, which would have been better discharged if we had had a White Paper which would have consumed at least an hour of that speech. I noticed that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) quoted something that "Nye" Bevan said about annual Budgets being fit for a pastoral society. I know about the rotation of crops, spring time, harvest, and so on, but the way that Parliament is constituted

now on the basis of Sessional Parliaments is just as antediluvian.
We are elected for five years. Every modern nation has adopted four- and five-year plans, and we ought to do the same with legislation. We would get down to dealing with it, and nobody to whom I have spoken has disagreed with me about this. If, when we were elected, we decided that we would embark on certain legislation, if it was still in the pipeline at the end of the Session, it could be carried over to the next Session, subject of course to another Second Reading debate, which would be a debate of assent or dissent to see whether we wanted to go on with it or not.
That procedure would be a godsend to the private Member who is victimised in the present monstrous set-up. He is ground between all the pressure lobbies and the Government. What happens to social legislation introduced by a private Member? Let us consider as an example the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill. This went through the House on a Friday by 223 votes to 29. Why did it not get upstairs before it did? The reason was that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) had an innocuous Bill about employment agencies on to which had been grafted about 16 Government Clauses, and while these were being considered the other Measure was held up. The Committee was considering what was almost a Government Bill. It is only by Government drafting and Government assistance that one is able to get Bills through, so this important social Measure was delayed upstairs.
All the outside lobbies cash in and start a campaign. I speak as a supporter of the Measure, and I do not see why it should get that kind of treatment. I do not want a Committee in which there are one or two vociferous proponents, and the rest are merely lobby fodder. If the Bill goes down it will do so not because of its opponents but because of its two vociferous proponents. I think that we should ask the Select Committee to consider this as a keystone to the problem, because if it did many things would follow from it.

Mr. Donald Chapman: Would not the great disadvantage be that we would lose the


Queen's Speech setting out the theme of legislation for each Session?

Mr. Pannell: My hon. Friend almost prompts me to a rude reply. I am in favour of having a decorative Queen's Speech when Her Majesty comes down and indicates the further measures to be taken, but she might as well say that the faithful Commons which gave consideration to legislation during the last Session will be reconsidering it during the next one. It is only a form of words put into her mouth by the Cabinet of the day, and sometimes I think that the Speech ought to have in it a few more adverbs and lurid adjectives. I suggest that the Queen's Speech is not really a serious argument to be put up by the Chairman of a Procedure Committee.
I propose now to move on quickly to the question of morning sittings. These sittings started off at half-cock. We started the wrong way. We should start these sittings on Monday night, adjourn the House at Ten o'clock, or half-past Ten, until half-past Ten or Eleven o'clock on Tuesday morning, and treat it as an Adjournment from the night before. By doing this we would spare Mr. Speaker the trouble of coming here in his fancy dress, and enable him to carry on with his administrative duties which we know are extremely heavy. By doing that, Prayers and the opening of the sitting would be conducted at a reasonable time of the day.
When we are considering Standing Order No. 9, I think that a debate under this Order might be ordered for the morning of the following day. This would fit in the debate quite comfortably. I would make it rather conventional, or completely conventional, for Mr. Deputy Speaker to occupy the Chair during morning sittings. We might then get a more formal procedure, and make it conventional for a Parliamentary Secretary to occupy the Government Front Bench, with the Minister coming down only when he thought it necessary.
In the long-term, I see morning sittings as private Members' time, and not party time. It is only if we build in safeguards for the rights of private Members that we will get the best debates and the evening papers, and push their Lordships out of the market and remove the

absurd idea which they have that better debates take place in the charnel house.
I notice that debates under Standing Order No. 9 are always concerned with foreign or colonial affairs. When hon. Members get up and speak with indignation about the Government, they seldom consider the natives of this island. I remember that on one occasion we were to discuss the Rating and Valuation Bill which concerned the rents and rates to be paid by the citizens of this country, and yet there was a monstrous row about something which had happened at the other end of the world. I submit that if one balances one against the other there is no doubt about which is the most important.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that war is a serious matter?

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) always seems to think that a reference to the other ends of the earth means that one is talking about war, but that is not always so. It is sometimes a matter of the imprisonment of someone, or something of that sort. If it were a matter of peace or war, that would be very different.
I happened to be in the Canadian Parliament where this sort of thing is handled rather better that it is here under that Parliament's Standing Order No. 23. The Speaker ruled that he would grant what we would call a Standing Order No. 9 debate—and this was the test of the rule in the Canadian Parliament—if the public interest would irrevocably suffer if the debate were not taken that day. That seems to be a good form of words, far better than ours.
I am sorry that Mr. Speaker is not present. I must be careful about what I say. Having studied every Ruling in this respect since Speaker Peel, I think that the rather libertarian view of Standing Order No. 9 started when we had a debate on Aden the other week. I was in favour of that debate, but I have heard better grounds than those given on that occasion for a Standing Order No. 9 debate which were refused. It all depends on Mr. Speaker, and we must take his decision.
From the start, it was a nonsense to talk about second-class and first-class


sittings in the context of morning sittings. It was rather curious that the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) should have kicked up a row about a statement concerning the salaries of members of the Steel Corporation being made at a morning sitting, but did not say anything when the Minister of Health, who occupies the Ministerial office which the right hon. Gentleman once held, announced extra facilities for those in need of invalid carriages. My priorities would have been that that statement was more important than the statement about salaries about members of the Steel Corporation. But how do we decide our priorities? There is not an hon. Member who in sincere good faith would not have different views about priorities from every other hon. Member. Consequently, we must get away from this nonsense of imagining that some time is first-class time and another time is second-class time. Mr. Speaker once said that Question Time was precious time. If morning sittings were regarded as being as important as any other time of the day, that time could then be put to the best use.
I come now to a subject on which I join forces with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), although he will not agree with all my statements. I agree with him at least that the forum of Parliamentary debate is this Chamber and not all sorts of Committees upstairs. A great deal of nonsense has been said on this subject, but the gaff was blown on it by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral this afternoon when he said that those who complained most bitterly about the lack of Committee were not those who served on the present Committees. I rather like Select Committee work, but even the Public Accounts Committee has been known to have to scurry round the building to find a quorum. Incidentally, I hope that the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner will be chosen with especial care.
Parliament has altered a great deal since 1964. There has been almost a catalytic reaction. What is it that so discontents new Members? What do they believe to be lacking? I believe that they ask from the House something which it cannot give them. They ask for participation in legislation and they want

a voice in legislation before it has crystallised in a Governmental view. I am not stating whether that is good or bad, but I believe that that is at the bottom of all the discontent.
If that is so, all I can say, with great regret, is that the answer to that is further Committees, that the view of Sir Edward Fellowes, a view which I rejected in 1959, will have to prevail and we will have to leave the Chamber for a day to accommodate Committees. If day after day there are to be a few of the faithful in the House addressing each other in a sort of rather dilettante exercise, and if that is a waste of time and all sorts of earnest people must be poring over Blue Books or acting as the authors of Blue Books upstairs, going into all sorts of matters, then we shall have to close up this place for a day. If we do that, the country will say that Parliament, which they think is already not working long enough, is taking another day off. That is what will be the view, because Members will then not be observed. It would be a bad thing if we had to cut a day from our weekly work in this Chamber.
I now come full circle and agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. I do not think that the spread of the Committee system is the answer to our ills. I believe that the other solutions which I have indicated are more germane to the problem—a continuous Session running for the life of a Parliament, topical debates and greater use of morning sittings to discuss what is urgent, to respond to indignation from either side of the House—not the frontal clashes between the two parties—so that the views of private Members can be properly aired and so that people can see this Parliament as we know it to be, as a vital living thing and not a creature in decline.
It need not be. We need not look back to the 19th century and to days long dead, with an electorate completely different and with much less awareness and much more ignorance than that of today. We have to bring ourselves up to date, to have the clash in the Chamber which is what registers most in the country and which is what gives force to the aspirations of the people whom we represent.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: Most hon. Members will


fully agree with the closing words of the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), but many hon. Members will also agree that the form and shape of the debate is somewhat unfortunate. The scope is so wide, covering four Reports, produced after great labour by the Select Committee, covering eight Motions, several of them of very great practical importance to the House, that it is extraordinarily difficult for anyone—and this applies as much to the Lord President of the Council and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) as to the rest of us —to cover even a reasonable number of the important matters which are raised. I would have been happier if we had had a day's debate to take note of the Reports of the Select Committee and then, in the light of that debate, the Government could have come forward with such proposals as they thought fit. As it is, we are in this difficulty. I shall, therefore, do what, no doubt, many of my hon. Friends would do, and that is simply to take up one or two points on which I feel that I have something to contribute.
The Lord President of the Council rather trailed his coat when he began by saying that morning sittings had been a success. As the late Dr. Joad would have said, it depends what you mean by "success". They have been very modestly attended and the impression has been given that they have been second-class sittings. I am very much fortified in that view by the fact that the Lord President of the Council and the Services Committee have not yet managed to make provision for filling the Galleries on these occasions. That gives an indication, perhaps excessive, of the lack of status of these sittings.

Mr. Crossman: I think that I am right in saying that all the members of the public who wish to attend morning sittings can do so. I made some inquiries for this debate and, as I understand it from the Serjeant at Arms, the maximum period of waiting has been 20 minutes and normally there is virtually none. There has been very little demand by the public and rather less by hon. Members. I am very glad of the chance to say that there is room for the public and that there has never been a time when there

has not been sufficient room. That is up to now, but it may, of course, change during the summer period.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is right on this. I am assured by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies) that the week before last, during the morning sittings, 60 people were waiting. Anyway, the right hon. Gentleman is not making a fair point, because if the Galleries were normally served, we would all receive normal allocations of tickets for them, as we do for afternoon sittings. It is the fact that Members have to apply and otherwise people have to queue to get into the Galleries in the morning which is the great distinction.
I do not want to stress this point—I am perhaps out of order in referring to the Galleries—but when one sees only one row or a row and a half occupied, one gets the impression that this is not the House of Commons, the centre and focus of national interest.
I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, on morning sittings, that Monday morning sittings were on the way out. However, there is no Motion to that effect before us, though I thought that he showed some lack of enthusiasm for them. Secondly, he did not refer to a point which I put to him a little time ago and which is of practical importance. The rather illogical corollary of the morning sittings is that the main business should terminate at 9.30 p.m. on those days, as it will tonight. That deprives back benchers—Front Bench speakers continue as before—of half an hour, with no ascertainable benefit to anybody. Whatever we do about morning sittings—these are matters of inter-party controversy to some extent—what there is no controversy about is that it would be better to revert to 10 p.m. Not only would that almost certainly enable two hon. Members to get in who otherwise would not, but it would also make it easier for hon. Members wih public engagements outside to return for a Division.
I speak as a London Member. Under the 10 o'clock provision, I can attend an evening function in my constituency and return, having had reasonable time for my constituency duties, but 9.30 makes all the difference. To touch on a sore


point, there are many London Members, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will indicate some change on this point—

Mr. Woodburn: But is not there the danger that hon. Members who come in al 10 o'clock come in fresh to start a debate which might last all night? Hon. Member; tied to this House by Committee work have done a day's work by 10 o'clock and object to other hon. Members starting all over again at that time.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by "fresh". I should have thought that they would be even fresher at 9.30 p.m. —[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman must be his own judge in these matters.
The right hon. Gentleman's warning about specialist Committees had much force. As the House knows I am the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and I thought that it was fair to point out that these Select Committees cannot operate efficiently unless they have considerable staff to support them. Such success as the P.A.C. has obtained is largely due—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) will agree—to the fact that we are served by the Exchequer and Audit Department, which 112 s a staff of 400 or 500.
Hon. Members have so much to do here that they find it much more difficult to get to the bottom of administrative problems unless they have really adequate staff. The right hon. Gentleman was right to warn the House that the mere setting up of a Select Committee without adequate official support may be a disillusion and discouragement to those hon. Members who enthusiastically seek to serve on it.
I agree, too, with his warning that, if we multiply the number of Select Committees, as hon. Members also have obligations on the Floor of the House, there may be difficulties in getting the quorums—or "quora", if that is the plural—without which the Committee is unable to proceed. This point needs to be watched.
I turn now, much more controversially, to the Finance Bill. Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for

Wirral, I have been associated with some. Although in a less exalted capacity, I have actually been associated with rather more than my right hon. and learned Friend, because I was at the Treasury for over five and a half years, and—I say this again at the risk of seeming controversial —in those days there was only one Finance Bill a year. The present system has much to commend it, and I am nervous about the so-called "reserve powers".
All Parliamentary procedure is, in a way, a balance between the Executive and the House, and one of the ways in which the House can prevail against the Executive on the Finance Bill is by talking. Once the reserve powers are invoked, Governments have little motive to make concessions, at any rate to the Opposition. They have perhaps reasons to make concessions to their hon. Friends, who otherwise might not support them in the Lobby.
As a Treasury Minister—this is probably common experience—I have made concessions, which I probably would not on balance otherwise have made, because they helped to lubricate the machine and to achieve progress. Once that incentive is removed from the Government, they are given further reason to be rigid and uncompromising. At a time when the concern of most of us who are interested in these matters is to increase the power of this House as against that of the Executive, the invoking of these reserve powers will be a thoroughly retrograde step.
I know that it is only to be an experiment, but experiments have a curious habit of becoming permanent. If it does, it would apply to a Finance Bill, however controversial it was. One of the penalties for a Government who introduce a highly controversial Finance Bill is to use up a good deal of time which they might otherwise use for other legislation.
I am very suspicious of this, and was alarmed when my right hon. and learned Friend said that if, after two or three days, it seemed that inadequate progress had been made, these reserve powers could reasonably be invoked. It is the experience of most of us who have taken controversial business—the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President will recall the National Insurance Bill of 1959—that an enormous amount of time is generally


taken on the first day or two on the earlier Clauses, but, as happened with that Measure, there is later an indication that, in the long run, good sense will not prevail—

Mr. Crossman: As the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of that Bill, would he not agree that it could be said that if we had an agreement at the beginning, he and I could have had a more sensible balance of discussion in those first two days? These are the lines along which most of us are thinking about the disposition of time upstairs.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I say nothing against voluntary agreement. Every Finance Bill I knew has operated under one. In the context of the National Insurance Bill, I might say, on the right hon. Gentleman's behalf, that we were approaching a General Election and that he hoped to be able to stop the Bill altogether. There is generally an informal understanding on a Finance Bill, and I am all for that, because it is flexible. If a Minister mishandles an Amendment, he may waste some hours.
There must be some flexibility, as otherwise we will not get a balance—[An HON. MEMBER: "We get it."] The hon. Member says that we get it. We do under the present system, but once we make it certain that a Bill will be secured by a certain time, come hell or high water, one takes away from the Minister in charge one of the most powerful arguments for making concessions. Therefore, on the whole, I would prefer to see no reserve powers, but to go on as we are, with perhaps some formalisation of the negotiations for a voluntary arrangement.
I come to the question of so-called short speeches and the limitation on speeches. I speak on this matter particularly to my hon. Friends because this is of special interest to the Opposition, although it is of interest to the House as a whole. There is a real problem involved in taking powers to put fixed limits on the speeches of hon. Members of this sovereign assembly who have caught Mr. Speaker's eye. This is a serious step to embark upon and that is why I am unhappy about our plunging into it on a Motion now, at the same time as discussing the Report of the Select Committee, which recom-

mended something quite different. I hope that the House will give considerable thought to this matter before accepting what I suggest would be a serious constitutional innovation.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral rather brushed aside, I thought, the question of the effect of this limitation on the good Parliamentary practice of giving way. Even if we had what he amusingly called "injury time", that would not solve the problem. Mr. Speaker would constantly be looking at his watch and be calculating that, say, because an hon. Member had given way for 57 seconds, that time must be added to his credit. It would be a difficult operation for Mr. Speaker, although that is not the whole of the problem.
When one gives way the House expects one to divert from one's main argument to reply to the point that has been put. If that were not done there would be no point in giving way. Once a limit is fixed on the time a speech may take—whether an absolute figure or a figure to be amended at the discretion of Mr. Speaker—most hon. Members would not give way.
In spite of "injury time"—which, I take it, would apply when an hon. Member had given way—one must also consider the question of time lost when sheer noise prevents one from being heard. It has happened to me, it has happened to the Leader of the House and, in time, sooner or later, it happens to most of us. Would that be covered by "injury time"?

Mr. Crossman: I would have thought that the answer was "Yes".

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: At what point would it apply? Would one have the time added if the degree of audibility went below a certain number of decibels?

Mr. Crossman: It would be added to the time allocated to the hon. Member.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That still does not meet my point about diverting from one's main argument, not only to give way but to answer an intervention.
It is for the House to judge whether the system would work. In making this judgment, it might care to bear in mind, this experience of mine. Leasehold reform is a subject on which I hold strong views. They are not, to say the


least, wholly the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I made a speech on what, in cold blood, might be described as of excessive length on Second Reading of the Leasehold Bill. The OFFICIAL REPORT shows that it lasted for 33 minutes, which is a considerable time for any back-bencher. On the other hand, I have reread the report of my remarks and hale noted that I gave way during that speech on 11 occasions, eight of them to the Minister in charge of the Bill. I did not give way, according to HANSARD, on two other occasions, although there were seven sedentary interruptions, to which I also endeavoured to reply.
It is for the House to judge whether it is better for an hon. Member to conduct his speech on such a subject in that way—giving way when appropriate and answering the points raised in those interventions—or whether he should plough ahead without giving way and sticking to his main line of argument. I dare say that I could have got through my speech on that occasion in 18 or 20 minutes had I disregarded interventions.
Not only is that one of the risks inherent in adopting a system of fixing limits, but I believe that we would detract a great deal from Parliamentary debates if the practice of giving way frequently — and accepting the consequences of one's speech having to be a little longer—were abolished.

Dr. David Kerr: rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Having made these remarks, I could not possibly refuse to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Kerr: I chose my moment. Would not the right hon. Gentleman concede that much of what he is saying falls if one regards the Motion as permissive rather than mandatory on Mr. Speaker? I submit that it can be read in that way.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is certainly permissive, but it must be anticipated—if this is carried—that Mr. Speaker, as the loyal servant of this House, would accept the responsibility of working it. So one must consider what would be the result of Mr. Speaker performing this task.
There are other points of objection. There is the great vulnerability of all representatives of minority views or of views which are objectionable to the

House. The Leader of the House said that if one was made inaudible by noise, that time would be added to one's speaking time. But consider the position of an hon. Member putting an unpopular case to an angry House and having to watch the minutes ticking by. He might get a word in edgeways, but would that time count against him? On the other hand, if one can face the House—as some of us have had to do when putting a minority view—one knows that eventually one will be able to put forward one's case, however much the noise. One at least knows that the case will be put; that is, unless one is winding-up a debate at ten o'clock.
The Leader of the House is right, and the Select Committee is wrong, in proposing that there should be no direct discrimination between front and back bench speakers. As the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) pointed out, the timing of the proposal in the Motion might result in there being discrimination between the front and back benches. But whether it happened indirectly, as a result of that, or directly, as it would if we adopted the Select Committee's recommendation, it would be wrong.
I can speak objectively on this matter because, on one Front Bench or another, I occupied that position in the past for about 15 years. At a time when most of us feel that the authority of the front benches is at least adequate, there should not be a distinction of this sort introduced merely based on where one sits—which is based not on what one's constituents have said but on the arrangements of the leaders of one's party. This would be a wholly derogatory provision and unfair to hon. Members and the House.
I have the greatest admiration for the oratorical powers of the present occupants of both Front Benches. However, I think that most of my hon. Friends would agree that we would rather hear a speech made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) than one made by any of the Ministers on the Treasury Bench. On my side, I would hate a speech being made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) to be cut short because other of my right hon. Friends wanted to speak. I therefore register strong objection in principle to what the Select Committee has recommended and to


what, I believe, would be the indirect effect of the proposal of the Leader of the House.
It would also be unfair to smaller groups. I agree that the hon. Member for Orpington never seems to need sympathy or help in this matter. However, it would be unfair to smaller groups in the House if their spokesman was given, as one proposal on the Order Paper suggests, one-third, or, as the Select Committee suggests, one-half, of the time given to the spokesman from either Front Bench. If there is to be a limitation on speeches—and I have argued that there should not be one—it should be equal for all.
Having spoken about short speeches, it would be inconsistent, even though I was arguing against them, for me, by going on too long, to give a warning to the House of the need for such a Motion. I hope that the House will hesitate a long time before, even in the most modest form, making use of the great confidence which we have personally in Mr. Speaker, deciding to introduce a system for the rationing of time for speeches.
If there is any proposal needed to deal with the problem of hon. Members not getting into debates, there is an Amendment which Mr. Speaker has directed shall not be called but which should be borne in mind. Standing in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) and myself, it modestly suggests that Mr. Speaker should be asked to ration the time in big debates between the two sides of the House so that, if an hon. Member took an excessive time, that time would count against his side and two hon. Members would be called in succession by Mr. Speaker from the opposite side. That would be a much less drastic reform. It would involve no rigid limitation. If the hon. Member who takes 40 minutes does it really well, his own side would willingly accept that. If he wastes the time of the House and keeps them out with a bad and boring speech, they will not. Anyone who has been in this House for any length of time knows that in all parties there are means of making one's displeasure and criticism known to a colleague whose apparent selfishness has led to one's being squeezed out of a debate.
If we do not come to a decision tonight I ask the House to consider the proposal contained in our Amendment. I think that it avoids the difficulties of rigid limitation, but does exercise some indirect sanction against the abuse of our time.
I hope that we may hesitate, that we may not decide in favour of the proposition now before us, but will give further thought to other ideas, including the idea my hon. Friend and I have ventured to put forward in our Amendment.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Donald Chapman: I have listened with interest to what the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has said, and I shall seek to deal with it in a moment. First, I want to refer to the way in which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House very kindly congratulated the Committee. We on the Committee, in turn—and I was rather sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) did not say this—really ought to be pleased that in a period of four months we have had two debates on procedure, each taking a complete day, provided by the Government, with another debate looming up. It shone clearly from my right hon. Friend's remarks that before long there would be another debate, and yet another, perhaps, in October or November. Four debates in a period of a year is a very good ration from the Government, and I thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman was, perhaps, a little churlish in not expressing his thanks—

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I was not complaining about the quantum of time, but saying that with shorter debates sooner we might have dealt more quickly with the subjects.

Mr. Chapman: Lest I offend the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I want at once to pay tribute to him for his work on the Committee. On that Committee we work as a team. When there is a necessity to say that we cannot agree, we do so, but we go to extreme lengths to reach agreement. The Second, Third and Fouth Reports we now have before us are prime examples of the way in which agreement can be sought and thanks are partly due to the right hon. and learned


Gentleman who, on behalf of his colleagues on the other side of the House, has made every possible attempt to reach it. To Aim and to his right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Walton (Mr. Turton), two senior members of the Committee, the House owes a very great debt for the unanimity that has emerged in the three main Reports which we are now discussing.
As my right hon. Friend has said, the whole work of our Committee—as is the case with every other Committee—would be impossible without the excellent help that we get from the Clerks to the House. A s Chairman of this Committee, I could not manage without the Clerk, who is in every sense my righthand man, who knows almost more than any of us, anyway, who spares no effort at all to service us, who does devilling for us, and who guides t s along. My right hon. Friend is quite right in saying that the whole position of the Clerks must be tackled without any further delay whatsoever. I do not know whether it is generally known, but at present we have Clerks in our service who have been here for 14, for 18 and for 20 years, and who still cannot be given the same status as an Assistant Secretary in a Government Department. The Clerks are people upon whom we completely depend, and they give us absolutely devoted service.
The net result of the present position is that they are leaving. One has gone off to Sussex University, and another has gone off to the Civil Service. We must, as a united body, within the next few months tell the Treasury that this position cannot continue any longer. We are at the moment trading on the good will and devotion of a number of Clerks who are not leaving because they have got attached to working in the House of Commons. It is disgraceful to continue to trade on loyalty in this way, and I hope that, through the Services Committee, my right hon. Friend will convey to the Treasury our strong feeling that this problem must be solved without any further delay. Not only are our Clerks leaving but, because of the terrible salary status we offer, we cannot recruit.
I believe that we should try the experiment of short speeches, because the penalty of not trying is not just a matter of inconvenience, and all the rest, but of heartbreak for many hon. Members who never get a chance at all. The price of

the 33-minute speech mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman was that at least one hon. Member, and perhaps two, did not get a chance to speak. The right hon. Gentleman should reflect that, as a Privy Councillor, he gets extra chances, but for many new hon. Members it is a case of heartbreak after heartbreak, waiting week after week, month after month, without getting even the smallest chance to take part in debate.
I believe that we should leave it to Mr. Speaker. Knowing our Speaker, and knowing how strongly he feels about the traditions of this place, I am sure that there is no danger of abuse and undue regimentation. I made this proposal in our last debate on procedure, and the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton chided me for not following the recommendations of the Select Committee, which was for a Guillotine after 15 minutes. I have always said, and I said then, that a Guillotine would not work. The House would never tolerate that, but it would tolerate giving discretion to Mr. Speaker on the days when he is heavily pressed with a long list of hon. Members wanting to speak. I am glad that the Government accept that the idea should be given a run, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not oppose it now—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps the hon. Member will answer two questions. On length of speeches, what length of time does he himself, in supporting this proposal, suggest that Mr. Speaker would find it possible during the period of operation to allow back benchers to speak? Secondly, does he accept, and regard as of less importance—I agree that it is a matter of balance—the fact that there would be virtually no giving way during that period?

Mr. Chapman: The amount of time that I hope Mr. Speaker would accept would be 15 minutes. It is possible to give way during a 15-minute speech and yet say all one wants to say. That should be possible. It is a fair balance, and a period of 15 minutes would take care of interruptions.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), referred to carrying over Bills from one Session to another. I hope that this suggestion will be considered, although I interrupted my right hon. Friend because I am not sure


that it should be done in terms of all major Government Bills. There is something to be said for a theme running through a Session, following the Queen's Speech, setting out the direction in which we are to go for a twelvemonth, after which the House should be refreshed by a new Queen's Speech.
I think that we should make a modest start by saying that any Bill that goes to Second Reading Committee—which is a Committee that does the workaday business of the House of Commons and deals with the ordinary run-of-the-mill stuff—should, by definition, be carried over from one Session to the next if not completed in the summer. This would solve another Government problem. The Government cannot now send any more Bills to Second Reading Committee because there is little chance of their completing their remaining stages before the Summer Recess. If, at this time of year, we could send to Second Reading Committee a lot of Bills on which there was no controversy, they could complete their Report and Committee stages in, say, the November, when there are no other Measures ready for those stages.
Reference was made to the voting reform appearing on the Order Paper. With respect, what my right hon. Friend did not make clear is that the Question will continue to be put from the Chair a second time after the two-minute interval. If the Division is "off" by that time, nothing is lost. The Tellers are told at the door that the Division is "off" and it has been a waste of time, but this happens so rarely that it does not matter. What the reform means is that even though the Question will be put a second time and the Division could be "off" on that second time, counting can begin within a few seconds of the Division being called in the first place. This would prevent all the bunching of hon. Members at the doors and hon. Members who are crowded there asking why the Whips are taking so long. I do not see any possible objection to this simple reform.
I said that I wanted to come to two main points and to keep my speech within about 15 minutes. Those points are Standing Order No. 9 and the Finance Bill. The Motion on the Order Paper about Standing Order No. 9 is not satis-

factory. It is not in the terms recommended by the Procedure Committee. The Committee said quite deliberately that when it drafted a new Standing Order—and it has been reproduced on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral—that in itself would not be enough. There must be with it a Resolution, which I hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have tabled, asking Mr. Speaker to interpret the new Standing Order in the light of the recommendations of the Procedure Committee.
The Committee said that if we started with a new Standing Order No. 9, how many occasions would arise during the year when it would be needed? Would there be two, five or 50? How is Mr. Speaker to know? He is being asked to judge urgency without being given any guidelines. The Select Committee recommended in absolute and definite terms that any new Standing Order should be accompanied by a Resolution of the House asking Mr. Speaker to interpret it in a way such as was operated in the first years of the existing Standing Order which works out at five or six times a year.

Mr. R. H. Turton: May I remind the hon. Member of his own recommendation? It was that the House should move to revise the Standing Order at the same time and on the same day to approve the Report. What we are being asked to do is to take notice of the Report. No doubt, Mr. Speaker in noticing the Report will notice the recommendations contained therein.

Mr. Chapman: To take notice of it is not to approve it. It needed a special Motion to say that it was not only taken notice of but approved. It should have had an added Resolution, as the Committee envisaged, saying that it should be interpreted as it was interpreted in the early days of the century. Otherwise Mr. Speaker has no guidance.

Dr. David Kerr: rose—

Mr. Chapman: I must not give way or I shall be exceeding the time I have allotted myself.
I come to the crucial matter, the Finance Bill. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames had some fears


about this proposal. The Select Committee said that, when all the song and dance is over and there has been all the pushing and pulling and talking into the night, that is a means of consuming a lot of time in order to get a day or two days more than the Government are prepared to give; it is still the case that almost always the debates end in eight or nine days in Committee. If this is so self-evident, why do we not cut out all the pushing and pulling in the first few days and say that the Committee debate is to end in eight or nine days? Why do we not exercise a little brevity and agree on eight or nine days at the beginning and get on with it on that basis? This is a point which I know influenced the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral in the Committee. He took the point and suggested that we should get over this difficulty before the whole debate starts instead of waiting to have the first days' debates late into the night and until 3 o'clock in the morning.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the hon. Member inhibited by what he has said from giving way?

Mr. Chapman: I shall deal with the point about why we should need a sanction. I believe that is why the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames wants to interrupt. The simple fact about the situation is that if the Select Committee had simply produced a report saying, "Let us all be good boys and have a voluntary timetable and go on roughly as we are, but be a little more sensible", it is probable that there would be little chance of making significant progress. Instead, what we did was to present a challenge to the House and say that in Committee on the Finance Bill this can work only if there is real toleration on one side and the other and a real willingness on behalf of the Government as well as the Opposition to agree to a proper number of days.
I would agree with the right hon. Member if the effect were in some way to allow the Government to say, "We can squeeze out every year one day or two days lost on the Finance Bill." I would join with him in condemning that. There has to be good will on the part of the Government in reaching a fair number of days, as well as good will on the part of the

Opposition, but the whole process will work only if at the end of the day the Government are able to say, "We have worked sensibly and tried very hard. We have reported to Mr. Speaker and it is impossible to get agreement despite all the good will and toleration and effort on all sides. We cannot do It, and that is why we shall have to have a sanction." If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it would work without some sanction he should have done this within the last 15 years. He could have made progress and gone further on the voluntary road if he had wanted to do so.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Member is addressing his remarks to me, perhaps he will give way. I think he has accepted my case that in practice the system takes about as much time as he thinks is right. Does he not appreciate that all the pushing and pulling he spoke about is, in fact, the way in which the Opposition can exercise its rights to get a fair compromise? What the Motion proposes is to give to the Government a big stick.

Mr. Chapman: That is not so. The right hon. Member is failing to understand the basic point put forward by the Committee, that when we talk about all this pushing and pulling we know that the time is going to be eight or nine days and there is no need for pushing and pulling to establish that fact. The way in which to take the whole matter a step forward is to say that not only will there be eight or nine days but that within those days we should try to sit for reasonable hours. That is the reform for which we should try, to get the debate in reasonable hours by agreement and a real willingness to trade and bargain in order to reach agreement. If the right hon. Member could allege that there is unfairness and a big stick is being used, I would join him or anyone else in saying that the system does not work in the spirit envisaged by the procedure Committee.
My time is up and I shall not detain the House longer. I believe that the package of reforms we are putting through today constitute a great step forward. I say strongly to the Committee that the House of Commons will never be reformed by blueprints. It will be reformed steadily step by step by building on the sort of experience we


have found to work and the sort of reform which having been tried can be modified and further improved.
I do not join the right hon. Member in condemning morning sittings. They have not done everything which I hoped they would do. I hoped that the Committee would recommend something which would get the House out of a straitjacket. In the 15 years in which I have been here the House has never tried an experiment of real change. This experiment started us breaking out of a straitjacket in terms of hours of sitting, the way in which we handle business and so on. It may not be perfect, but we can profit by the mistakes and go further and build on what we have got. One of the reasons why this reform had to go through in its present form was that we were not agreed on anything else as a solution with which the Government could make a start. To break out of this straitjacket there had to be, first, something which did not look too bad, and, secondly, something which the House would tackle.
Having tried it, we can now improve on it, as the Leader of the House said. I do not think that the experiment has been half as bad as some people pretend. I believe that it has started us out on a road of flexibility and innovation and of trying to see whether we can have different hours of sitting, do our work better, and go home at a reasonable hour at night. We shall profit from it, even though some of it has not been entirely acceptable. This is as much as we can hope for from what was a very big step forward.

5.41 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee. I agree entirely with what he said about the way that the Committee has, at all events recently, been working on an entirely non-party basis and the advantage that this has. His concluding remarks about the implementation of that part of the Committee's Report which was not dealt with on a nonparty basis is, perhaps, the clearest evidence of the truth of his earlier remarks in this respect.
As one who has been a member of the Select Committee for a very long time, I find a greatly increasing interest, both inside the House and outside, in the way in which we conduct our affairs. This interest is extremely valuable and useful, because, although this is generally regarded as a dull and abstract subject, it is among the most important, not only for us here, but for the personal freedom of the subject. As a result of my experience on the Select Committee and from what I hear, I have come to the conclusion that many of our existing rules are now outdated. The field of Government has been changing. The nature of our economy has changed. The range of the social services has greatly increased. All these things have meant that our existing rules are not now adequate for their job.
Suggestions for the changing of the rules have come to us from all quarters of the House and from all shades of political opinion. Today we have a large batch of proposed alterations. As the Leader of the House has said, these are simply piecemeal changes—improvements or otherwise, as one may think. There is need to try to take a somewhat deeper look at this problem than merely to consider a series of particular changes put forward by various people and considered by the Select Committee, by the Government, and by others.
There are broad considerations and broad motives involved. There is, first, what has been described as the need for streamlining our procedure. We always hear a good deal about the need to streamline the procedure of the House when a new government first get in. There are always quite a lot of people who are tremendously anxious to carry through a large legislative programme, and they want to see the means of doing this made easy. Streamlining the procedure is something that the Government of the day as a Government are always keen to have done. They are supported by the views of those Members who, on the whole, want us to conduct our affairs in relative comfort; because, if Members are comfortable, our procedure works smoothly, legislation goes through, and the Government are happy.
Against that principle of need, there is to be set the need for the maintenance of the effectiveness of the House—that is, our power to discuss, to criticise, and,


above all, to delay, because our power to delay action by the Government is our only power here as Members: there is nothing else. If that power to delay is removed, all our power as Members of Parliament is removed. That view is supported by the wish of those Members who do not want an idle, comfortable life, but who want to be active and to have opportunities to raise matters and to make large speeches. In a curious way, the Right and the Left meet here, with the middle perhaps taking the other route.
This being the conflict, this being the fundamental question which we have to consider, there is only one possible answer —that is, a compromise. I do not think that there is any ideal way of arriving at a solution of this problem. The Leader of the House said that he was not making certain proposals which had been put forward by the Select Committee, because he wanted to see our major proposals, suggesting that he was trying to find a major way of dealing with the problem which is facing us. I do not think that that is possible. We shall never get a complete or final statement of principles on which our procedure should be based. There is always bound to be a series of empirical answers. It is right that we should have this standing permanent Select Committee on Procedure always considering these matters and that we should always be bringing forward proposed alterations. This is the right and, indeed, the only way of dealing with the matter.
I believe that all the proposals on the Order Paper are, on the whole, satisfactory. I am sorry that there are certain omissions. I am sorry that we are not discussing anything further to deal with the question of Parliamentary Questions. However, I shall not pursue this aspect, because I should be out of order if I did so. The present lull is highly deceptive. This is a permanent problem. We shall have to deal with it by much more Draconic means than have yet been attempted. I shall content myself with saying that at this juncture.
I want now to say a few words about the proposal relating to Finance Bills. It is a pity that it is necessary to deal with our procedure relating to Finance Bills exceptionally and specially and not as part of our proposals relating to legislation

generally, because, after all, a Finance Bill is simply a part of our legislative machinery and, although it is, in one sense, an exceptional part, it is nevertheless legislation in the ordinary sense of the word.
There is a special reason and a special difficulty here. It is one which has not been mentioned this afternoon, though it is referred to at some length in the Report of the Select Committee. The Finance Bill, if we are to have an annual Finance Bill—I think that we all agree that there has to be something of the kind—can be taken only with the Budget, and the Budget cannot be presented before about the beginning of April because that is the turn of the financial year.
Owing to the operation of what is generally known as the Bowles Act, the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, the Finance Bill must be passed and completed before we rise at the beginning of August. A little arithmetic will show that this leaves only a very few weeks during which the detailed examination of the Finance Bill can be taken. The Leader of the House failed to say anything today of his intentions regarding this period for the taking of the Finance Bill. The Select Committee suggested that the present procedure under which the Bill is always passed so as to leave a full month in another place for consideration is unnecessary now. If that suggestion were adopted, it would give a further fortnight for consideration of the Finance Bill, which would greatly relieve the pressure on the House.
There is one Whip on the Government Front Bench at the moment. I hope that he will ask whoever is to reply to the debate to give an indication of the Government's intentions in this connection. The question is of general interest to the House, and the Select Committee's suggestion would be greatly conducive to our comfort. The state of affairs regarding the Finance Bill does result in cramping. It is, I think, an inevitable state of affairs, and we are, therefore, bound to deal exceptionally with this Bill if we are to consider the problem.
For my part—here I differ from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter)—I think that what is proposed


could be something of a pilot scheme if it works properly. I know that a number of hon. Members, particularly some of my hon. Friends, feel that there are grave dangers here in that the Government are taking a big stick, but they already hold this stick in their hands. The difference between the size of the stick which they now propose to take and the one which they already hold is that, if they wish to introduce a Guillotine at present, they run the risk of losing a whole day, whereas, if we adopt the proposed scheme, they will run the risk of losing only two hours out of a day. But, as against that, the Government themselves give some chance to the Opposition because the matter will be decided not by the Government under a Guillotine Motion but by a Committee appointed by Mr. Speaker, which might be more generous to the Opposition.
It seems to me that we have here a sensible and reasonable compromise. No one can be certain at this moment whether it will work well. If it does not, its failure will show. It will be a Sessional Order. For my part, I believe that it can work well, and I hope that it will. I am not sure that this year is a very good occasion to try it out, but that is another matter. If it works well for one or two years, it may provide a precedent which will be useful not to this Government alone but to our procedure and to all Governments. All of us, in looking at it, must remember that we may be sitting on one or other side of the House and be able to avail ourselves of whatever we decide to do.
The legislative process under our present procedure is unsatisfactory. We are reaching a stage when practically everybody is consulted about what should or should not go into a Bill except the House of Commons. We had a Bill recently before the House, the Fugitive Offenders Bill, on which the Government simply said, "We cannot accept Amendments. We have already agreed all these points with someone outside the House and, indeed, outside the country, so it is not possible to make Amendments now". Perhaps that was an exceptional Measure, but we all know that this sort of thing is happening. The T.U.C., the C.B.I. and various bodies outside are consulted, all know about it, and the Government com-

mit themselves before the matter comes to the House. This is a thoroughly bad state of affairs.
The expedient of sending the Finance Bill or any other Bill to a Standing Committee would not help. We shall need some quite new and larger experiments in procedure. I believe that we should bring in some kind of small Select Committee procedure so that we can in this House summon those who are concerned with the subject matters to come and give evidence to us and submit to cross-examination. However, that is not a matter before us today. It is only an idea which appears to me to have some merit.
As regards suggestions relating to the length of Members' speeches, on the whole I prefer the Government's proposal to that in any of the Amendments on the Order Paper. Again, if we do not do something here, the position will become worse than it is now. We all know how frustrating it is not to be called. Hon. Members are frustrated. Some may be frustrated even today. We have to choose between two evils, and I regard the evil of what is proposed as very much less than the evil of what we have now or of any other procedure which has been suggested.
I am not sure what the Leader of the House meant when he said that he would not take action about the recommendation to amend Standing Order No. 9 until he had our wider report on the subject of, I think, legislation. It seemed to me that that was quite irrelevant, and it was little more than an excuse. It was a unanimous recommendation of the Committee and one which, I believe, is welcomed in all parts of the House. Its purpose is simply to relax very slightly the increasing stringency with which the present Standing Order is interpreted. My right hon. Friend mentioned that there have been only 15 debates under Standing Order No. 9 in the last 20 years, and that compares with 102 in the first 20 years of this century.
Whether the right average is something less than one a year or something more than four a year, anyone would hesitate to say, but most of us feel that two or three times a year would not be unreasonable for the House to assert its own wish to debate something urgently, against the Government. It is against the Government


of the day. The Government dislike changes, of course, but the purpose of the Standing Order is to give the House an opportunity to assert itself against the Government. The Government will resist, naturally.
I hope that the House will assert its will against the Government in this connection, too, and that we shall insist on having a right to discuss urgent matters —by "we", I mean the House as a whole, back benchers in particular—whatever the Government may think about it.
The Leader of the House will be familiar with the principle that "Manners makyth man". In Parliamentary terms, that might be translated as, "Procedure makyth Members of Parliament." That is the way it goes, not the other way round. In the long term, it is our procedure here which dictates the sort of people we are and the way we work. I hope that, when we amend our procedure, we shall have regard to the needs of Members of Parliament, always bearing in mind that we are people who should represent the common people of England, that we should, therefore, be enabled to lead the lives of the common people of England, and that we should be the sort of people whom they are likely to choose.
This will be dealt with by the way in which we fix our procedure. In my view, the measures proposed go a little way in that direction and, on the whole, I support them.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: We have had a most interesting debate, which shows the House at its very best, because we are trying to make our machinery work in the best possible way. There is a great deal of misunderstanding in the apprehensions hon. Members have, because the House never works unless there is tolerance between the two sides. If the usual channels come to agreement the House works smoothly. I have seen numerous occasions when agreement broke down and war was declared between the two sides. That lasts for about a week and exhausts everybody, with the result that one returns to civilised proceedings and toleration. Therefore, the fears that the House could not exert pressure on the Government are misconceived, because whatever happens to the Finance Bill, the House

has plenty of ways of preventing the Government getting on with their business if they are not reasonable. It can impose its will on the Government at least to the extent that they must be reasonable.
There is great apprehension about limiting speeches. But let us remember that the House has tried that, and it has worked. Hon. Members think the Scots talk till Domesday, but it is a great misapprehension. In the Scottish debates on two days a week that the Scots have had for many years, Tom Johnston and Walter Elliot and the others, who could talk for as long as anyone else, had a voluntary 15-minute restriction on speeches. That worked, and in many cases twice as many people spoke in a debate, they spoke more concisely and in a more businesslike way than normally.
Those Members who had to do a 15-minute talk on the wireless in the old days know very well the great amount of material that could be put into 15 minutes. A Member who did so knew that if he spoke for longer he would bore the whole population stiff and they would probably turn off. It is important to interest the House. Winston Churchill could interest the House probably more than anybody else during the war, but even he could hardly hold its interest for more than an hour, or an hour and a quarter, even in the middle of the war. It is an illusion to think that there are Members with such eloquence that the whole House wants to hear them for an hour and a quarter, or even for merely three quarters of an hour. Very often their audience consists of Members wishing to goodness that they would sit down so that they themselves have a chance of being called.
Members are inclined to think that even if somebody else has said something they must say it all over again. That, too, is a misconception. It would be good for the debates that speeches should be of about 15 minutes. I should be against an exact limitation; Mr. Speaker is a reasonable person and if he sees that a Member is interrupted, and his time exhausted by other people, he will use his discretion, and the House will approve of his doing so.
We tie ourselves up with imaginary strings, but I think that we can get a reasonable solution. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) made the point


that while an hon. Member may feel that he should speak for 33 minutes he has no idea of the valuable speech he may be shutting out, wisdom which we never have a chance to hear. Clearly, the Members who are not allowed to speak have a greater sense of grievance than one who is not allowed to speak for twice as long as he should and, perhaps, need.
There is alarm over the Finance Bill. It is not we who restrict the time on the Finance Bill; it is time that restricts us, for there are only 365 days in the year, and we spend a much smaller number here. When hon. Members talk about days they sometimes mean days and nights. While the nights may be very entertaining for those who have 'their hobby horses, they are not so entertaining for those who are not financial experts but who, because of the rules of the House, must stay here, perhaps for 20 solid hours, because somebody wants to go on repeating a speech on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, sometimes with the approval of nobody but himself.
Other hon. Members have a right to have their lives used in a proper way, as well as the right to address the House. It is an abuse to use up other people's lives to deliver a useless speech, which is often the case. In Finance Bill debates I have known five hours to be used up not in discussing the Bill but in the game of filibustering to compel the Government to give another day. To the ordinary person in the street that seems just a childish way of using our lives and conducting affairs in the House.
Nobody can tell me that the Chancellors of the Exchequer and the Finance Ministers sitting here all night and then spending all morning preparing for the next afternoon are capable of continuing to deal sensibly with the points raised. We need to have mercy on Ministers. From my own experience, I know that doing a big job during the day and sitting here all night is cruelty to animals. It should not be permitted, and the public thinks that it is stupid. We should take into consideration the House's image in the eyes of the public, who want us to organise our business in a business-like way. That may mean sacrifice.
It always improves things when we make changes. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) said

that a great deal of changes are empirical. That is true. The Guillotine and other things were brought in because the Irish Members created the necessity, and necessity is the mother of invention where procedure is concerned. It is necessity now that is bringing about change. By the time it is brought about everybody sees the necessity for it, and therefore we can get reasonable agreement on it.
When it considered the matter, the Select Committee came to the conclusion that there was no point in introducing, even by a majority, ideas which nobody would adopt. The Government cannot adopt an idea that the Opposition do not consider to be reasonable. Therefore, we simply put forward to the Government the possibilities for them to consider. They did so bearing the Opposition in mind and came forward with these reasonable proposals, which I hope that the House will accept. Some hon. Members may have other ideas, but the Committee was sitting for weeks, if not months, and the ideas could have been sent to us to consider. But when ideas are put forward to us some are found to be impracticable on examination.
The members of the Select Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield, who is the Chairman, have examined these matters in great detail. They have done a great deal of work and gone to a lot of trouble. The wisdom of their unanimous decisions should be accepted by the House. It has the right to alter its procedure when necessity arises, but it is a mistake for us simply to proceed in the empirical way. We must have vision about the working of the House.
One of the things that is wrong about the House is that the whole Chamber very often occupies its time with a lot of fiddly matters that should not take the centre of the stage. This is the greatest public assembly and forum in the world, and we should be careful not to reduce it to discussing trivialities. We used to discuss policemen's pensions and other subjects which should not come to the Floor of the House. Many of the Orders merely dealing with details should not be considered there.
This House, if it is to be the focus of democracy in the world, should be discussing things worthy of the House itself


and many of these other matters should be shunted off to a committee or to some lesser assembly. We have already succeeded in getting the Second Reading of Bills of a minor character sent to a Second Reading Committee. When I succeeded in getting these reforms first of all in connection with the Second Readings of Scottish Bills, which it was agreed to send to the Scottish Grand Committee, it took a great deal of struggle and argument. But it has worked.
This procedure should be adopted for English Bills. I do not see why England should not have a little home rule in this direction as well. Why should not English Bills be discussed in an English Grand Committee? As the hon. Member for Hendon, South said, the English people have a right to be considered. Give them an English Grand Committee which can discuss English Bills which are not controversial. Let them have extra debates in the Session just as the Welsh and Scottish Grand Committees do.
In this way, we can get devolution within the House which will relieve the centre of the House of many detailed problems. There is no doubt that, this year or next year or later, this country will inevitably be part of a greater European community, and even now we have right hon. and hon. Members who spend valuable time at the Council of Europe. But no one here ever hears of what they are doing. We discuss Vietnam and all the ends of the earth, but we do not discuss what our own representatives are doing in Europe.
A number of great questions will become very important for the future of the world and this House, which should be discussing them, does not. One of the problems that the Council of Europe will face is how democracy is to control the eventual government of Europe. No one has solved it yet. They are not satisfied with the present solution in the Parliament of Europe in the Common Market.
These are fundamental questions which the House will have to devote its attention to. The Government are conducting discussions about entering the Common Market. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have apprehensions and doubts. Nobody is quite clear as to what will be

the eventual outcome. These are questions we should discuss in this Chamber and we should get rid of a lot of the details in order to make room for them. That is what is meant by Standing Order No. 9 and getting more public debate on major issues.
This is why the Upper Chamber is claiming the credit of being a better debating Chamber. While we deal with a lot of trivialities, the House of Lords devotes itself to great and important questions. We have to visualise what this House is eventually to be. I think that we shall see the time when the Chamber, which is the best form of Parliament in the world, is devoting itself to questions of first-class importance and not wasting time sitting up all night discussing things that do not matter.
It is quite wrong that hon. Members should not use their lives sensibly. I have been here a long time and I have sat up as many nights as anyone else. I have seen people exhaust themselves in doing so. At one time, I recall, one hon. Member suggested that this was the best way to kill off Ministers. There are more humane ways of doing that. I hope that this Mother of Parliaments is going to set an example to the world. Perhaps more countries will adopt democracy if they see the Mother of Parliaments making it work successfully.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I thank the Leader of the House for the flexible manner of his speech. I am pleased that he is to look again at the question of Monday morning sittings, and that brings me to what I hope is a positive suggestion.
I am concerned that the position the right hon. Gentleman took originally about this matter was at variance with the recommendation of the Select Committee. So is the Motion we are debating on the length of speeches. So was the daily timetable involving morning sittings. In future, I hope that on publication of a report of the Select Committee the right hon. Gentleman will seek a meeting with it and discuss with it why it has reached certain conclusions. That might prevent him being at variance with the Committee, only eventually to discover that it was right after all.
We on the Select Committee cannot dictate what the right hon. Gentleman's attitude should be as Leader of the House, but we did go into these matters in great detail—far more detail than appears in the published reports—and we would all find it useful to be able to understand why he has taken up the position he has done. I hope he will realise that this remark is kindly meant.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), the Chairman of the Committee, dealt adequately with the points I wanted to raise about the position of the Clerks, the need for more of them and for better conditions. But I would add that it is somewhat odd that we have no women Clerks in the House. Is there some sort of discrimination? Should we not cast the net of recruitment a little wider?
The right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), who has great experience, posed the question of what irks the new Member. He pointed out something that has been under-estimated outside the House—that it has undergone considerable changes in the last two General Elections in the type of Member coming here. More and more Members come here expecting to work on a full-time basis. That is necessarily so because of the growth and complexity of modern Government which has developed among Governments of all parties over the years. Parliament has to deal with matters that it did not attempt to deal with 20 or 50 years ago.
As government becomes more complex, it is necessary that more Members should become full-time and that they should carry out the proper job of checking the Executive in this place. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Leeds, West answered his own question with the first priority. As a new Member, what irks me more than anything else—more than anything about debates or the mumbo jumbo which concerns the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) so much—is the lack of facilities to do the job.
I know that this is not part of the terms of reference of the Select Committee, but we cannot entirely separate it from consideration of how effective is the role of the Member in checking the

Government. Indeed, as the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) pointed out, the more we go in the direction of appointing Specialist Committees the more we shall place a burden on the work of the M.P.
The time has come to take real stock of the methods and conditions under which we expect Members elected to do a significant job to carry it out. No secretarial facilities are provided. Our accommodation is hopelessly inadequate, with six or seven Members cramped together in one room with one telephone and a secretary in a building on the other side of the street. This must be one of the few remaining buildings where the telephone system operates on the old method of picking it up and waiting for an answer. Internal communications have not advanced basically from the primitive method of a runner with a cleft stick.
In the last few months, I have spent some time in talking to non-political bodies, like rotary clubs and so on, throughout Scotland on the general theme of the modernisation of Parliament. They are always absolutely astounded when I describe the conditions under which we work. They did not know about it and were horrified. I know that this is not strictly a mater for the Select Committee on Procedure, but we cannot improve the effectiveness of the rôle of hon. Members in this House unless we tackle drastically and urgently the problem of the equipment and facilities we have to do the job.
I have one original and drastic solution to put to the Leader of the House, which goes beyond the remit of any Select Committee, and it is that we should clear the Lords out of the Palace of Westminster. I say this in all seriousness. If we had a modernised second Chamber, there is no reason why they should not go to another building, a new building elsewhere. They could come back to the Chamber and sit in it on historic occasions. Then let us take over the whole of the Palace of Westminster and solve our accommodation problems. I hope that that will be seriously considered by the Government.

Mr. Michael English: Would the hon. Member be prepared to consider that we should have the new building and the Lord the old?

Mr. Steel: I am not certain about that. There may be a case for it, but there is some value in hanging on to the old principal Parliamentary building. No building would substitute for this one.

Earl of Dalkeith: I was very interested in what the hon. Gentleman has been saying about accommodation. I wonder whether he had ever thought that perhaps there were too many Members of Parliament in the place?

Mr. Steel: I am not certain about that. I used to think that I could agree with the noble Lord, but we are having difficulty new in manning Committees. If we reduced the numbers of people we would automatically have to reduce the membership on every Committee, and we would be in real trouble.
I and my colleagues will give general support to the Motions before us, with one reservation, and that is the Motion on the length of speeches. I must tell the Leader of the House that I will vote for this. We have a free vote on this matter, but I have discussed it with my colleagues, and I am not able to carry many of them with me on this. I must explain their doubts. We are giving here a tremendous new power to the Speaker of the House of Commons. I do not think that it is quite appreciated that it is totally unprecedented and quite outside the traditions of the House. We are granting the power to the Speaker to cut short any speech without any reservation or hedging, or anything else.
Any Speaker must be a mixture of benevolence and tyranny, and I dare say that our present Speaker has an adequate and correct mixture of both. But I fear that if we try this as an experiment it may become embodied in the rules of the House, and we do not know what our future Speakers may be like. It is something that we should not dismiss as lightly as we have done. I regret very much that the Leader of the House has not followed the recommendation of the Select Committee, and I think that in earlier speeches the Select Committee's recommendations have been misunderstood.
What we were saying at page xix of the Report was that the House should pass a Resolution indicating that we expected, in the normal course of events,

and in normal debates, Front Bench speeches to be half an hour and back bench speeches to be 15 minutes. We go on to say that in the case of Front Bench speakers:
… Your Committee recommend that the resolution of the House should invite them to limit themselves to half an hour whenever possible.
It was said that the Speaker at the end of the time limit would merely indicate this. There would be no restriction on the freedom of the Member to continue, there would merely be the pressure of opinion which, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling-shire (Mr. Woodburn) has already indicated, does work successfully in the Scottish Grand Committee, when it is put into effect.
These voluntary time limits can become an effective method simply through pressure of opinion, and it is a very much better system than that of giving arbitrary powers beyond the normal traditions of this House into the hands of the Speaker. In any case, it is placing a very unfair burden indeed upon Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Crossman: Just to get this perfectly clear. In that case I have misunderstood the nature of the proposal. The proposal is specifically mandatory, enabling an experiment to be made
by laying down a limit of 15 minutes for any speech by a back bencher.
That would be laid down by resolution as a mandatory limit, I think.

Mr. Steel: As a member of the Committee, I did not place that interpretation upon this. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at page 27 of the evidence he will find that in a question to Mr. Speaker I outlined in some detail what had happened in the Scottish Grand Committee which I hoped would happen in the House. If he looks at that again, he will see that the Select Committee, in my view, did not intend that there should be a rigid rule that speeches should not exceed 15 minutes and that that would enable Mr. Speaker to intervene in a Member's speech and cut him off. It does not say that Mr. Speaker should have the power to cut a Member short. That is not the interpretation that I place upon it. If there has been misinterpretation of this, it is very important that we clear it up.

Mr. Crossman: I was quoting from paragraph 15 which one takes as being the recommendation of the Committee. It says:
Your Committee recommend that an experiment be made by laying down a limit of fifteen minutes …
That is absolutely explicit. It goes on to say:
It is suggested that the occupant of the Chair should be able to allow any speaker some suitable extension of time …
I would have thought that by common English language that meant that there was a limit of 15 minutes and the Speaker would permit someone to exceed it. If that is not so, I agree that it would make a considerable difference to one's view.

Mr. Steel: We must look at this again. I was quoting from paragraph 7 on page 19. I may have got it wrong, but I was not at the final meeting of the Committee. I certainly understood from our deliberations that that was the recommendation that we had made.
There is one other objection which my colleagues have, and I would be grateful if the Leader of the House, in order to secure their agreement to this Motion, would address himself to it in his summing-up. It is that the proposal that he has made may have a severe effect on the position of the Liberal Party in the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) mentioned this point, very fairly, I thought. The position of the Liberal Member as part of a minority group is a peculiarly difficult one.
I know that some Members envy us the position, in that the happy custom has grown up that always one Liberal will be called. But this has disadvantages too. The disadvantage is that it means that no other Liberal will be called, whereas someone else may have a sporting chance of getting in on a debate. We know that we have no opportunity of getting in if we are not the Member selected by the party to speak. This carries an obligation on the Members speaking to put forward the general view of the Liberal Party on any particular issue.
Supposing that a major debate was to take place, where the Liberal Party had a particularly different approach to some

major problem. The Leader of our party may wish to make a major policy speech, but he might be restricted by being regarded, as he is, as an ordinary back bencher of the House, and only able to speak on equal standing with any back bencher of one of the other parties. This is a fear of my colleagues, and one which they are right to have. I am prepared to vote for the Motion, because I think that the advantages outweigh the dangers. But the right hon. Gentleman will have some convincing to do if he wishes to have the support of my colleagues. I am sorry that the Select Committee on Procedure has not yet got down to an examination of Scottish procedure. I followed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire with interest, and I agreed with his remarks about pressing for an English Grand Committee.
Time and again when we are sitting on the Committee a point of Scottish interest is raised, but obviously the Committee cannot spend a great deal of time upon it. I cannot see the Select Committee on Procedure setting up a sub-committee to deal with Scottish procedure. The Scottish Office is the Department of State least subject to Parliamentary scrutiny, and yet it is a most powerful body for our constituents. Members who are not Scottish Members can come here day after day and put questions to the Minister of Transport on Monday, Agriculture, Tuesday, Home Office, Wednesday and so on, but all of these matters are covered by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Woodburn: rose—

Mr. Steel: I will give way in a moment. We have to wait for our one opportunity in five weeks to put our questions on these matters affecting every part of our constituencies.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman is aware that people have been complaining that the Chancellor only comes on once in eight weeks? With regard to his main point, is he aware that Scottish Members, because of the reforms carried through, have eight days to discuss Scottish business? This is not available to other Members, and even now that time is not fully used.

Mr. Steel: I agree. What I am saying is that scrutiny of the Scottish Office and


maintaining the interest of our constituents is not adequately covered by eight days' debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. I should like to see questions sessions introduced in the Scottish Grand Committee when matters of Scottish interest could be raised.
The position of Scottish Members has been worsened by the appointment of the Select Committee on Agriculture. The Leader of the House said originally that the writ of this Select Committee would run only as far as the Ministry of Agriculture in England and Wales and that it would not be concerned with the Department of Agriculture in Scotland. One or two Members kicked up a bit of a row, and two Scottish Members have been appointed to the Select Committee. But they are still in the ridiculous position that they cannot call before them any official of the Department of Agriculture in Scotland. Scots are already at a disadvantage in protecting the interests of their constituents, and yet this is a Select Committee which cannot probe affairs of the Department of Agriculture in Scotland. I hope that the Leader of the House will put this matter right as soon as possible.
My final plea to the Leader of the House, and indeed to the Select Committee, is: for heaven's sake let us get a sub-committee working on Scottish procedure a t the earliest opportunity.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I wish to say a word about short speeches in general in view of what has happened in this debate. Up to now, no speech has lasted less than fifteen minutes, and five Privy Councillors have spoken. I hope that the proposal will apply equally forcibly to Privy Councillors as to back bench members and to their privileged position in being called.

Mr. C. Pannell: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: I wish to try to set an example.
I want to relate my remarks almost exclusively to Motion No. 6, which proposes to set up another Select Committee to examine the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner. That Committee will need to be staffed, even though it might be admitted that it will not be as hard pressed as the other Select Committees.

Presumably it will meet much less frequently than once a week. The staffing problem in the Clerk's Department is assuming, and indeed already has assumed, very serious proportions. It has been referred to in several speeches almost in passing, and I think that it deserves something more than a passing reference.
The Clerk's Department is under very great pressure, more pressure than ever before. It is not too well known in the House what its members are trying to do. They are attempting to serve no fewer than 34 Select Committees and their subcommittees, plus nine Standing Committees, plus the Second Reading Committee, plus the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees, plus the Committee on Opposed Private Bills, plus several committees on opposed Bills. Let us say that 50 Committees are being served by the clerks in the Clerk's Department.
There is an enormous complexity of Committees. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) vigorously scribbling. I can guess what he is scribbling. But the fact is that there has been an enormous increase in the scale and complexity of the work which clerks are doing. May I give one or two simple examples?
The Table Office received 12,200 Questions in the Session 1961–62. This Session it has received over 24,000 to date. This seems to me to betray a crass ignorance on the part of Members or an insatiable thirst for knowledge. I fear an interjection which might be made at this point. The fact is that the clerks who are dealing with Questions are very much overworked.
In the Session 1956–57, 27 Bills were considered in Standing Committees, which have to be staffed by the clerks. This Session, the number which have been or will be considered is 81. In 1960–61 the clerks serviced 21 Select Committees. As I have said, this Session there are 34, with more to come.
The clerks are doing more and more international work, with British delegations to W.E.U. and the Council of Europe. Yet, despite the increased pressure of work that they are doing, their number has remained stationary for very many years. In fact, only last year was the establishment authorised by the Treasury increased from 36 to 38.
I wish to refer to the position as it affects the Estimates Committee, to which I belong. We have six investigating sub-committees to investigate the whole of Government activity. Prior to the establishment of the two new specialist Committees of Science and Technology and Agriculture, the Estimates Committee had one clerk per sub-committee, plus another senior clerk supervising the whole. Even then, the clerks who were servicing the Estimates Committee were not wholly and exclusively attached to the Estimates Committee, although, to be fair, it was always assumed that, as in fact happened, they would give their service primarily to the Estimates Committee. Nevertheless, they were expected to serve, and did serve, Standing Committees and other Committees.
When the Select Committee on Procedure went into this matter in 1964–65, it recommended in its Fourth Report that there should be two senior supervisory clerks for the Estimates Committee and one full-time clerk per sub-committee exclusively and entirely devoting his service to the committee. In my view, that was not then, and certainly is not now, an extravagant, irresponsible proposal.
Yet, what has happened? The Estimates Committee has had two clerks taken away from it altogether following the establishment of the two new Specialist Committees. Therefore, we still have the one senior clerk at the head in his supervisory capacity and the four clerks for the six investigating subcommittees. One of those clerks is servicing two sub-committees—one on the British space research and development programme, and the other on the working of the Industrial Training Act, two completely different subjects. He is also clerk to the Joint Committee on the Censorship of the Theatre, also a vitally important subject. One clerk is presuming to give service, and doing it very well, I gather, to three Committees dealing with vastly different subjects. Another clerk is servicing two subcommittees.
This is happening for the first time in the history of the Estimates Committee. Two of its clerks are having to serve two sub-committees. About a week

ago we had the ridiculous situation in which, because one of the sub-committees was exercising its right, hardly fought for in the House, to examine expenditure overseas, it went overseas and took with it a clerk who was servicing another committee, which had to abandon or postpone its proceedings until he returned.
One of the reasons for our problems on the Estimates Committee is that the new Specialist Committees have refused to accept the idea of being served by seconded civil servants. I support that view entirely. The Clerk's Department of this House must remain separate from the Civil Service. That is of crucial importance. Our clerks serve the Legislature, whereas the Civil Service serves the Executive. If there is any suspicion, either in this House or outside, that there is a clash or conflict of loyalty, it would result in a great loss, in my view. However, the quality and promotional prospects of our clerks must not be inferior to those of the civil servant.
The present wastage of clerks, which is quite a serious problem, is due almost entirely to the lack of promotional prospects compared with their counterparts in the Civil Service. Already, we are two short of the agreed establishment of 38, and I believe that at the moment another four contemplate leaving us. Even if we get the additional two which we hope for in October, the number will still be inadequate for the solution of all our problems.
A fortnight or so ago, the Third Programme broadcast some talks which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had with Dr. Norman Hunt. In the course of them, my right hon. Friend hinted very strongly at the creation of further Specialist Committees. I, for one, hope that we get them. However, they are completely useless if we do not get staff in sufficient numbers and quality to man them. We are being offered the shadow for the substance if that happens.
That leads me to the two main propositions which I wish to make. First, immediate steps should be taken to increase the establishment of the Clerk's Department by not less than eight, from 38 to 46. That is a very modest proposition, and I say that it should be done immediately, because action must be


taken within the next two months if we are to get recruits from the universities Sin time for October.
My second proposition is that the increased numbers will of themselves add greatly to the log-jam of promotion. Assuming that my first proposition is accepted, a system must be devised to ensure that our clerks are no worse off in their promotion prospects than their counterparts in the Civil Service. The position at the moment is that a House of Commons clerk with the status of a principal in the Civil Service will be 48 before he can expect promotion to the status of assistant secretary. In the Civil Service, the same man with the same qualifications—and he might have even less—would get the same promotion at 39. In other words, he would be nearly 10 years better off.
That is why our clerks are leaving us. A time lag of 10 years in promotional prospects is a great disincentive to clerks coming here to serve us. Our clerks are as good as their counterparts in the Civil Service, and, judging from some of the evidence which the Estimates Committee has heard, in many cases they are better, with all due respect to the Civil Service. It is an interesting and indefensible point, too, that the promotion of clerks in the House of Lords is faster than that of clerks in this House. I am not sure what the moral of that is, but I will not pursue that point any further.
It is not surprising that we are having difficulty in getting recruits. Even when we do, resignation becomes a real possibility in a few years. I urge my right hon. Friend to press the Services Committee to give immediate attention to the necessity of increasing substantially the establishment of the Clerk's Department and devising a ladder of promotion to give our clerks the prospect of a better standard of living and more promotion prospects than they have now.
I take immediately the point which the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) took from The Times today about recruiting lady clerks. I am all in favour of that. We have them in the Library, and they are a pleasant adornment there. There is no reason why we should not have them servicing us as well, if that is not misconstrued.
All this will cost money, of course. The propositions which I have in mind, however, will amount to something less than £50,000 a year. In that connection, I want to say only two things. During the broadcast discussions to which I have referred, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister emphasised and defended the growth of new Ministries and the bringing into the governmental machine of more and more able and experienced people "with earthy experience". No doubt my right hon. Friend believes it to be a sound investment to bring these people in from outside, and so do I. However, I disagree profoundly with him when he asserts that we, as back bench hon. Members
have got more power than ever in influencing policy measures, in investigating Government activities, in questioning Ministers, and the rest.
The opposite is nearer the truth. A large part of the malaise affecting the House and a great deal of the frustration of hon. Members on the back benches is caused by the feeling that we are pitiful political pygmies—

Mr. C. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman should speak for himself.

Mr. Hamilton: —battling feebly with a Government juggernaut, or, at best, house-trained puppies hoping for the renewal of our licences.
Let me give two more statistics before I close, having expressed myself as being in favour of short speeches after this one. The number of civil servants in the administrative class in 1966–67 was 3,702, servicing the Executive, at a salary cost of nearly £13½ million. In 1967–68 the figure will be 4,013, and the salary bill will be nearly £14½ million, which represents an increase of roughly 8 per cent. both in numbers and in salaries. Those are to serve the Government, and that figure does not take into account the figure of nearly 90,000 professional, scientific and technical civil servants.
The total number of clerks serving us, the Legislature, and our Committees investigating the Government's activities —the Public Accounts Committee, the Estimates Committee, the Nationalised Industries Committee, the two Specialist Committees and so on—is 11. The total salary bill is not £14 million, but £40,000 at most. We are not asking for very much.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who made a 35-minute speech today. will go to the Treasury and make another 35-minute speech. Let us have a sufficient number of tools of sufficiently high quality to do the job which we are meant to do in this House; otherwise, please do not try to placate us with fine talk and a further proliferation of Committees. Either the Government and the Treasury foot the bill and provide the personnel, or cut the cackle.

6.50 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: I welcome this opportunity of expressing my strong agreement with the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). I believe it is important to make it clear today that there is widespread, indeed I hope unanimous, agreement on both sides of the House on the question of staffing the Committees. This is essential if Parliament is to do its work more efficiently, which is, after all, the most important consideration that we are talking about today.
I shall not spend any more time on that, because I want to adopt a perhaps consistent course of speaking briefly, and I shall therefore confine myself to Motion No. 5. I was not a Member of the Committee, and I therefore wondered whether one ought to take part in this debate because there are few Members who have spoken today who were not on the Committee. However, I understand that it is not regarded as a private fight—in fact it is not a fight at all—and that anyone is entitled to join in.
I venture to wonder whether it would be right for the House to pass Motion No. 5, because it has not received the consideration of the House as a whole. It is unfortunate that there are not present many hon. Members who were not Members of the Committee. It is unfortunate, too, that the only reference that one finds to this very important point about the limitation of speeches in the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure is in the First Report, and there is no indication in the title that it is there at all. The Report is headed "The Times of Sittings of the House", and one can find references to this topic only by digging them out on two or three pages of the

document. I think that there are many hon. Members who have not appreciated what was said or done about it.
The Government are not proposing that the suggestion put forward by the Committee should be adopted. I think that they should have hesitated before making any positive proposal if they were not going to adopt the Committee's proposal, because there has not been discussion in the House, and when one finds on the Order Paper three other proposals—it is true that we are not discussing them—made by responsible and experienced right hon. Gentlemen opposite, one would think that this was a matter which required further discussion.
When relevance is placed on the Committee's Report, I think we should notice that the new power proposed to be exercised by the Speaker is only a dispensing power. All that paragraph 8 suggests is that the occupant of the Chair should be able to allow any speaker an extension of time. In other words, it is a dispensing power, the implication being that the House is to impose a limitation either by persuasion or possibly some sanction, but the Speaker is only asked to act in this dispensing way.
When one looks at what Mr. Speaker said, one finds only a brief reference to it. He certainly was not asked whether he wished, or desired, to have this new, and I think very serious, responsibility of, in effect, telling an hon. Member to sit down when he was not out of order. I think that before we give Mr. Speaker this responsibility we ought to consider it a little more carefully.
I hope I am right in saying that there are only two references to this in the evidence, and certainly the proposal which we are now being asked to adopt was not considered by the Committee. I think, therefore, that we ought to realise what we are doing. I entirely agree with the principle. The difficulty is to find the machinery by which it should be adopted. My hon. Friend reminds me that when this matter was discussed briefly on another occasion it was indicated that the Committee was considering, or it was thought it would consider, some extension of the voluntary principle, and I think that there are a large number of members of the Committee who, as far as I have been able to gather, if they had had the chance of doing so, and had been


consulted about it, would have expressed themselves not in favour of the Government taking the Committee's proposal and altering it in this way.
I know that this is a difficult subject, and that it is always easy to criticise. I feel that if we are going to do anything, we shod give the House the responsibility in certain circumstances of expressing its view and then let Mr. Speaker act as he always does in accordance with the desire of the House. The Motion as it stands does not require Mr. Speaker to apply the same principle to different Members. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has appreciated that. Mr. Speaker can say, I will allow X ten minutes, but allow somebody else 20 minutes". I am sure that that is not the intention, but that is the implication of it.

Mr. Crossman: I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman heard that part of my speech in which I explained that I drafted the Motion in general terms after consultation with Mr. Speaker, and that after drafting it I discussed it with him. I therefore read Mr. Speaker's definition of the way in which he wanted to apply the rules. I thought that that was the proper way. If we are to allow Mr. Speaker a discretion, we ought first to say that we will rely on it, and then ask him for his view of how the discretion should be applied. I thought that if we were to do this at all that was the right way to do it.

Sir L. Heald: What concerns me is that when one is dealing with Statutes, what is said by Ministers about what they intend, or what the courts might think they meant, is not evidence. The same sort of thing applies here. If the House passes a Resolution, it is the Resolution of the House which will apply.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. We are allowed to speak in this place only through the occupant of the Chair. When he rises we sit down. No Member has any place in here in his own right except in so far as the Chair gives it to him. It is not a statutory right. It is not a Standing Order. It is an unfettered discretion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): That is not a point of order for

the Chair. I think that the right hon. Member is entering into the debate.

Sir L. Heald: I was talking about the terms of the Motion. The wording of the Motion which the House is being asked to approve apparently purports to do something which no one would want to do.

Mr. Crossman: We are discussing a matter of considerable importance. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is implying that the Motion, or what Mr. Speaker allowed me to say on his behalf this afternoon, is somewhat less binding. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that, because of the way in which we conduct our business, when Mr. Speaker says that he intends to act in a certain way, that statement has a certain binding character which I would have thought was at least as great as a Resolution of the House in terms of the proceedings of the House.

Sir L. Heald: I would not dispute that, but, having pointed out that there is a discrepancy, I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would want to alter the terms of the Motion. I could suggest how he should do it, but that is not my job.
I shall not offend against what I am speaking in favour of, namely, that the time of the House should not be occupied unnecessarily by hon. Members. I earnestly suggest that this very important departure from our fundamental principles should not be agreed to without more careful consideration than we are able to give it today with the number of right hon. and hon. Members present. Not only that, but only one Minister has been present. There has never been more than one Minister and possibly only one Whip present at any time. This is a serious matter, and we ought to consider it more seriously.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I hope to follow not the example but the advice given earlier and make a short speech. Like some, but not all, hon. Members, I believe in the development of the Specialist Committee principle. It is perhaps the one practical way in which the power of hon. Members against the Executive can be developed in the modern context.
I can speak from some experience of Specialist Committees, because for a number of years I served on the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and I now have the privilege of being Chairman of the new Select Committee on Science and Technology. The virtue of this new Committee is that its terms of reference are extremely wide. We are charged with the duty of investigating science and technology and reporting. Having terms of reference that wide has been most valuable to the Committee. We have been enabled to select our own subject for inquiry and to hold, not inquests into what has happened, but inquiries into broad public policy, to try to look at the best shape of public policy for the future.
We have taken advantage of our wide terms of reference and, as the House knows, we are already looking into the nuclear reactor programme, which is bound to be, and is, a wide-ranging inquiry. This means that those hon. Members on that Select Committee have to do a great deal of work, not only in the sense of attending the meetings of the Committee, but in reading and, for that matter, visiting nuclear installations. This is a most important point about the new and, for that matter, some of the old style Select Committees. Service is not just a matter of attending a Committee. There is a great deal of work in addition to that for the member following closely the subject under investigation.
It is no secret, because it can be seen on Thursday mornings in Room 16 upstairs, that the Select Committee on Science and Technology meets in public and takes evidence in public. Nor is it a secret that it is our intention in due course to call Ministers before us. The inquiry, in fact, involves an intensive programme of activity and those of us who are taking part in it are enjoying it.
However, in its wisdom the House has now given us an additional subject, which is that of the dangers of the oil pollution of the Country's beaches in the light of the "Torrey Canyon" wreck experience. That is why we are now to have power to appoint a sub-committee, because, unless we are to finish our present inquiry before starting the new, the only thing we can do is to take the two inquiries in parallel.
The point which I want to make to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is that we have cheerfully accepted that reference to us—presumably we had no alternative but to accept it—and we shall do our utmost to carry out two sound investigations into big subjects. I agree also, however, with the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) that it is most important that the Specialist Committees should do work of quality rather than simply of quantity. We shall, as I say, do our utmost to bring to the House a satisfactory report on this oil pollution reference, but I hope that there will not be too many outside references of this kind to this or other Specialist Committees. If that happens too often, it will mean that the Executive, with the power which it commands in the House, will be determining the work and scope of the Specialist Committees.
Much of the interest and fascination of working on these Select Committees is that they can range about and find their own place for inquiry and in that way be valuable new instruments of the House. If a Specialist Committee is given power in the first place to look where it thinks it right to look, and then afterwards is to be told that it should do this or that, much of the Committee's critical value will be lost. I have risen to make this short point because I think it important for the successful future of the specialist committee system.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Provided that I do not need too much injury time, in the literal sense of the term, I propose to speak for ten minutes and no more, and to add some thought and, I hope, some lustre to the Amendment which appears in my name and in the names of many of my hon. Friends. I have reason to know that that Amendment commands the support of about 200 Members. Because of the short notice, I did not have time to have it fully canvassed on both sides of the House, but I personally know that it represents the view of a very large number of hon. Members.
In passing, I want to make one comment. I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Clackmannon, East Stirling-shire (Mr. Woodburn) that this assembly


should be the predominant assembly for major debate. I also believe that it is vitally necessary that we should recognise that the formation of legislation in advance is a new role to which the Government should look in future and that legislation on many home affairs and matters of that kind could well be undertaken by laying down general guidelines in advance, through Select Committees, which could usefully be employed by the Government thereafter.
I profoundly believe that generally speaking—I do not refer to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), which I would have hoped to have heard already, and other illustrious speakers—the House is not listened to outside. It obtains no Press, no publicity and, frankly, in the main is a bore. I want to get rid of the whole of our method of speaking in recent years. One of our great objectives should be that speeches in the main should not exceed 15 minutes.
In particular, over the years I have personally felt deeply aggrieved and have seen many other hon. Members suffer very deeply from the system by which Privy Councillors and others almost invariably speak for 20 minutes and longer. In this debate, while the speeches have been of a high order and very interesting, the first four averaged 20 minutes and the next three 15 minutes. I know that those speakers of importance and ability could say a great deal very effectively in ten minutes. The truth of the matter is that we must give up the idea that every speech of ours must contain in it everything on every subject. It is impossible to debate four Select Committee Reports in one debate. Let us take out one issue and leave to others some of the meat so that they can follow up, and we shall get a true sense of debating which the Press may pursue, and we shall then regain interest.
In specially selected debates, major economic and major home affairs debates, and even important Adjournment debates, it is most important that many hon. Members should speak for ten minutes, and not more, each making a contribution, so that the benches on both sides are filled with those eager to get in. As an illustration of that, in this debate we would have had twice as many speakers, although I would not regard this as being a debate which would be specially

selected. I remember very well the debates on the Rent Acts when Mr. Speaker had 60 or 70 Members in the House wishing to speak. On one occasion, on this side, only five were called, three of whom were Privy Councillors. That is the negation of debate. It is no good saying that someone made a very good speech of 30 to 40 minutes. They were good speeches. The then Member for Hampstead, who is now in another place, made three admirable speeches, but each lasted 30 to 35 minutes and he thus denied other able speakers the opportunity to speak.
I therefore believe that it is essential in the modern age to relearn the whole basis, method and technique here. I agree with the observation in an aside of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), that speeches and procedure in this House affect our character. It will change our character if we make speeches of 10 minutes and, in general, of 15 minutes.
I enter one caveat, that although I believe that the Speaker should have the power in exceptional cases to have specially selected debates in which we should not speak for more than 10 minutes, and although I think that in any important debate no one should speak for more than 15, with a limit of half an hour for the Front Bench speakers, I would not wish a time limit imposed on every debate, as that would prevent the delay which is sometimes an integral part of the tactics on certain debates and in ordinary Committees. Those who have heard one or two admirable long-term speakers recognise how good they can be.
I suggest that, between the hours of 7 and 8 in the evening, those who indicate a firm intention not to exceed five minutes should have priority over anyone else in that one hour. I would invite the right hon. Gentleman to consider at some stage whether it would not be better, in conjunction with Mr. Speaker, if, in most debates, though not those which are specially selected, a list should be issued beforehand at 2.30 p.m. of the order in which speakers will be called. I think that this is right.
I do not ask for it in the specially selected debates, when speeches would be limited to 10 minutes and would thus ensure that 20 or 30 could speak. However, in the ordinary run of hack debate,


is it so much fun leaping up and down to catch Mr. Speaker's eye? Is it not better to know in advance, as they do in another place, the order of speakers?
I hope that, at the end of the year, the right hon. Gentleman will find that this experiment has been of benefit in achieving shorter, sharper and cleaner debate, which will bring back lustre to this Chamber.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn: I shall refer later to the question of length of speeches, but begin by congratulating the Procedure Committee on getting some recognition of its labours with some minor Amendments on the Paper. As a member of all Procedure Committees in the 1955 and 1959 Parliaments, I have some experience of the innate conservatism of this House, particularly of the two Front Benches. As a member of the 1959 Procedure Committees, I concluded that I was the only one who was not under strict instructions that there should be no changes whatever. When it became known that I intended to move that the Finance Bill should be sent upstairs, in whole or part, two additional Members who were known to be strongly opposed to that idea were added to the Committee and I lost. I therefore have some experience of how difficult it is to get changes in this House.
I was interested in what I thought were signs in my right hon. Friend's speech of the first break in his wild enthusiasm for morning sittings as they are at present run. At the moment, we are getting the worst of both worlds—morning sittings and late night sittings, which was surely never the intention of those who were most enthusistic for morning sittings. I suggest that those who are so enthusiastic should carefully read what Mr. Speaker said about the difficulties they create for his Department, the Department of Ways and Means and the Officers of the House. I am not entirely against morning sittings, but if we are to have them, I should like them to have some sensible use and not be reserved merely for second-class business.
Times of sitting of the House are dependent to some extent upon the Members of the House. It is not the mumbo-jumbo to which some hon. Members refer which takes up time, but hon.

Members themselves who often create the difficulties. What is the position? Most hon. Members would be satisfied to feel that we would complete our business by 10 o'clock each night. We ought to consider our procedure to achieve something like that.
What causes us to have late nights? The first cause is the overloading of the programme by Government business. All Governments are guilty of this, perhaps a Labour Government more than any. But the Opposition cannot complain about the amount of business which the Government have put down, because we had not been back more than a month before hon. Members opposite were complaining that the Government had not carried out all their election promises.
The second cause of our being kept late at night is such business as Committee and Report stages, Financial Resolutions, Prayers and Orders. I have always believed that the House of Commons, with 630 Members wandering in and out, is not the place to discuss detailed matters in Committee and on Report. All Committee stages should go upstairs, including the Finance Bill. I have little sympathy with the idea that we have a duty to our constituents and cannot let these lists of taxation go through without voicing their views. I would put more faith in that if hon. Members were just as enthusiastic for examining the Estimates, the money which pays for the Finance Bill provisions.
Financial Resolutions should be the first business of the Standing Committee after Sittings Motions—I do not see why they need be taken on the Floor of the House—with the same limitations on time as we would have in the Chamber. I would also send upstairs to special Committees all Prayers and Orders. I see no reason why this House should not be sitting in two places at the same time. It is not as though there are 630 hon. Members in the Chamber desperately anxious to take part in every item of business that comes forward. A great many things are happening in the Palace of Westminster and I see no reason why hon. Members should not sit in two places at the same time, so to speak, debating various subjects in the Chamber and debating Orders, Prayers and so on in Committee upstairs.
To ensure that we complete our business by 10 o'clock at night, I suggest that any business that is not completed by then should be carried over to the following morning, when hon. Members who were discussing it the previous night would be expected to turn up at 10.30 to resume the debate. There would then be a sound use for morning sittings. It might also have a salutary effect on speeches made at night. If hon. Members knew that they would have to be back here the following morning to complete the business of the night before, their speeches the night before might be somewhat shorter. I trust, however, that business taken at those morning sittings would be major business and not the sort of matters that should be discussed in Committee upstairs.
I am not enthusiastic about the Standing Order No. 9 proposal because, whatever the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) had to say on its behalf, the words "specific, important and urgent" are hardly different from the wording of the present Standing Order No. 9. After all, if a matter is specific, it is definite. If it is important, it is obviously important, and if it is urgent, it is obviously urgent. I suggest that if we adopted this suggestion we, would find ourselves with precedents being built up and with the business of the Government being upset.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point of the recommendation, which is that there should be a new definition and that Mr. Speaker should not have to give his reasons. If that were done, a history of precedents would not be built up.

Mr. Blackburn: I agree with the idea of Mr. Speaker not having to give his reasons, but I still maintain that there is not sufficient difference between the recommendation and the present Standing Order No. 9.
I had hoped that a suggestion would be made to regularise the position regarding counts. Consider the fiasco during the Consolidated Fund Bill. Instead of having one set of rules following the precedent established on that occasion, a different set of rules in connection with counts called in Standing Committees, a different set covering counts called on Fridays and a different set for a Division

which might take place between 7.30 and 8.30, the position should be regularised and the same rules should apply on all occasions.
I agree with the recommendation about Divisions, but I suggest that if Mr. Speaker has any doubts about the intention of hon. Members who challenge a Division, he should be empowered to require those who are challenging to stand up so that he can be absolutely sure about their intention.
I have made it clear that, in addition to the Finance Bill, all major Bills should be committed to Committees upstairs. I speak as one who has had more experience of Standing Committees than probably any other hon. Member. I believe that unless an extension of the committee idea is made, too much time will continue to be spent on the Floor of the House, with hon. Members showing great interest in the first few Clauses of Measures and then getting tired, so that less attention is paid to the remaining Clauses. It would be a great advantage to the House if, for every major Bill, a timetable was imposed if that was thought necessary.
My only other comment about the proposed timing of hon. Members' speeches is that I regret the suggestion to put the onus on Mr. Speaker. I do not see why the odium should be his. I do not agree with the proposal, but if there must be a change, the House should take responsibility for it and not place it on Mr. Speaker.
I realise that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate and, although there are many other matters on which I would like to speak, I will resume my seat.

7.27 p.m.

Sir Spencer Summers: I shall confine my remarks to two main aspects of the matter, although I will first deal briefly with two less important ones.
I welcome the suggestion of the Chairman of the Committee on Procedure, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), that there should not automatically be an end to a Committee stage of a Bill just because there is a gap between one Session and another. It would undoubtedly greatly facilitate the procedures of the House if a Bill, having reached its Committee stage, could proceed automatically in the new Session


without it having to start all over again, and I hope that we will hear more of this suggestion.
I find it difficult to reach a convincing conclusion on the subject of the length of speeches because there can be no doubt that an immense amount of time is wasted by hon. Members advocating certain courses which they could advocate in a much shorter time. I fear, however, that to adopt the suggestion of giving Mr. Speaker discretion in this matter might lead to unfortunate results.
It is proposed that there should be one, two or three hours in which a prescribed limit should be laid down for hon. Members' speeches. That means that between the end of the Front Bench speeches and this period of one to three hours there would be no time limit on speeches, after which there would be a limit of, say, 15 minutes for each speech. That would lead to ill feeling being attracted to the Chair because hon. Members who were called during the limited period would be upset at not having been called during the intervening period, when the time limit would not apply.
If discretion is to be given—and I hope that it will not be given—the only way to avoid trouble arising is to begin the prescribed period from the end of the Front Bench speeches and continue it until the start of the winding-up speech, which is normally made one hour before the final vote. Any alternative would lead to difficulties.
It would be a thousand pities if before embarking on any sort of limitation of speeches, we did not give a trial to the principle outlined in one proposal; namely, that time should be rationed between the two sides of the House rather than individual hon. Members being limited. If we accepted that principle we could at' least try it out as an experiment. It would enable sanctions to be imposed by the respective sides on those who spoke too long, because in so doing Members would be depriving their friends of taking part in the debate.
It therefore seems a great pity to embark on any limiting of speeches until that method has been tried. It will put a very great premium on those who talk fast. It is very much more enjoyable to listen to speeches that are not delivered too fast, when one can appre-

ciate the points at issue. If we are all to gallop along trying to make point after point before our time is up, we shall not only deprive the House of an element of relaxation but make it much less attractive to others in putting points—

Dr. David Kerr: rose—

Sir S. Summers: I do not want to give way. I have my eye on the clock, and I have two other major points to deal with.
It is important not to consider morning sittings in isolation. They should be seen as part of an increase in the time demanded of Members to fulfil their Parliamentary obligations. Another increase in time results from the proliferation of committees and sub-committees. There is a rumour going round that because Monday mornings are thoroughly inconvenient, every Tuesday, every Wednesday and every Thursday morning will be allocated to private Members' business and the Government will take every Friday for their business. That would be a further extension of the time Members are expected to give to the House.
I shall not lightly forget a remark made to me on the first day I came into the House as a Member. It was during the war, when we sat in the daytime. I was introduced just before lunch, and then asked my way to the Members' Dining Room. I had some slight difficulty in finding an empty place, but when I sat down a stranger sitting next to me said: "Is your name Summers?" I said that it was, whereupon he asked: "What do you do in real life? "I thought that that was a lesson that some of us could well remember for the rest of our lives.
If the time we are expected to give through morning sittings, or through more and more, and still more, Standing Committees is to prevent us learning a little more of the real life outside this building, we shall have embarked on a course which may have grave disadvantages in the way in which the country is governed. There was a time when the argument ran that the salary of a Member of Parliament was so insufficient alone that it was necessary for him to augment it with salaries outside and that to enable that to be done there must not be too much time taken up with life in Parliament. That argument has very little relevance and merit in present circumstances, but


there are many other opportunities open to hon. Members besides earning a living or a part-living. They can benefit by research, travel, study and discussion, conferences, and the like, and it will become more and more difficult for hon. Members to avail themselves of those opportunities the more their time is demanded for Parliamentary duties.
Moreover, when the Government majority is about 100 it is just possible to imagine the prescribed number of Committees—and the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) said that, in all, there are 50 of them—being manned just adequately, but if the minority party were to be still smaller life would become utterly intolerable for its members. If there are to be more than two great parties of any size they will be expected to be represented, and things will become more and more impossible. Let us, therefore, be very careful that we do not build up this whole business so formidably that we are denied the opportunity of learning how real life is led.
Another aspect is the growth of Committees and all that flows from it. Having served on the Estimates Committee for some 17 years, I was naturally rather suspicious of the proposal to have Specialist Committees, although I understand some of the reasons why it was made. The two initial Specialist Committees are not likely to do much harm to the work of the Estimates Committee and may render very valuable contributions, but there is talk of still more Committees. I have been wondering whether it is possible to draw a line and say that, on one side a Specialist Committee can be expected to render valuable service to Parliament because the all-party concept can be preserved—and a Specialist Committee has no merit whatever unless that concept is preserved—whilst, on the other side, the nature of the case is such that that concept will not survive because of party pressures, and the like.
In an attempt to find a dividing line between the Specialist Committee that may be expected to succeed and render service and the Committee in which that is most unlikely, I have used the arbitrary description of "executive" Departments of State and "non-executive" Departments of State. On

the executive side—and I use these purely for the sake of illustration—are the Treasury, the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence, where major Government policy is reflected immeasurably by the policies pursued in those Departments. They are what I call the executive Departments. On the other hand, such Departments as the Ministry of Agriculture, the Board of Trade, perhaps the Ministry of Power and, certainly, the Ministry of Labour, influence the people active in those spheres—the firms, the farms, and the like. They prescribe the frontiers within which the real work is done, but they are not executive Departments in the sense that I am trying to use the term.
I therefore hope that when the Leader of the House is considering which Committees will be likely to preserve the all-party concept, he will have regard to what I have said and will not put those Committees to too great a test. If they are put to too great a test, their reputation will suffer, the whole scheme will be rejected out of hand, and what good might have come out of it may be prevented.
I was very pleased that the Chairman of the Estimates Committee, the hon. Member for Fife, West, devoted practically the whole of his speech to the need for additional staff, of the right quality, independent of the Civil Service, to service these Committees. It so happens that it is my sub-committee of the Estimates Committee that is prevented from sitting this week because the Clerk, and a very admirable Clerk he is, is going overseas with another Committee. It just will not do to set up Committees of this kind and expect satisfactory service from someone who not only has his attention and concentration divided between two sub-committees of the Estimates Committee but who has other responsibilities as well.
These Clerks acquire greater expertise in discovering the weak spots in the Executive's administration, and that expertise takes some years to acquire. If there were ever thought to be a practical alternative in seconding people to this work from the Civil Service, I would not doubt their loyalty at all. My only fear would be that just when they were really acquiring the expertise and experience necessary to guide these Committees


it would be time for them to go back to the Civil Service.
I therefore hope that the Leader of the House will impress on the Treasury that from all sides of the House today he has heard a unanimous view that what is required is not only to increase the staff in numbers, but to provide an adequate career structure, with adequate prospects of promotion, so that no longer shall this House be served by a group of people suffering by ten years in the time it takes them to reach the next grade in their profession.
Lastly, there is the question of overlapping between these new committees and certainly the Estimates Committee, and possibly others, for all I know. I do not think it possible to lay down in advance what shall be the frontiers between, say, the Estimates Committee and a Specialist Committee. Nor do I think it wise to assume that there is not room for both. I welcome the Leader of the House saying that in addition to the steering committee to the Estimates Committee there should be a new steering committee to which proposals for investigation could be submitted before work was actually started so that by common consent all activity could be assigned between the different Committees. Then a great clash could be avoided and time saved.
I hope that in dealing with these matters the growth of Committees will not be taken in isolation. When deciding whether each little sphere should have a Committee or not, there are far wider considerations which are relevant. If these matters are dealt with in this way perhaps my original fears about the growth of these Committees may prove to have been misplaced.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: Everyone who has listened to this debate will agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) about the urgency of improving the conditions of those who work for us in this House. It is intolerable that those conditions should continue. I am sure the Leader of the House is very glad that these statements have been made from all parts of the House. He should take it as an in-

struction to report to us at an early date on what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to say about this long before the next Report of the Committee. This is a matter which obviously must be put right.
I concur with all the tributes paid to the Select Committee on the Reports it has presented, and the Leader of the House himself deserves much credit for the reforming zeal which he has shown in dealing with these matters. I am not at all surprised about that. I have known my right hon. Friend many years and I have known that he is a born reformer. When he reaches the Elysian Fields I am sure that he will have some scheme for their improved irrigation which he will wish to put through with the assistance of such unemployed M.P.s as he might find with him at the time, thinking that he will thereby ease their frustrations and give them useful work to do.
A few weeks ago there was almost a pincer attack on my right hon. Friend from both sides of the House. I am glad that there has not been the slightest evidence of that in this debate. It might have been that he would have been removed from his position. It would be a disaster for the House of Commons if that were to happen. If it had happened I do not believe we would get another reforming Leader of the House this century Hon. Members would say: "Look what happened to poor Dick," and no one would try again. I am glad that he is carrying through this campaign and I wish him the best of success. Of course, I have differences with him on particular items to which I shall come, but that is a different matter.
On the question of length of speeches I am not sure that those who are opposed to the proposals should not declare their interest first. I should like to give reasons why I think it wrong to proceed with any plans for limiting speeches, certainly the plan put forward by the Leader of the House. This matter should be considered, but, since there have been so many objections from different parts of the House on different grounds, it is right that my right hon. Friend should say on this Motion that he would be prepared to withdraw the present proposal and later put it forward in a different form.
Many hon. Members, like the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), can


deliver extremely effective speeches in five or 10 minutes. That is a great faculty, but some of the best back-bench speeches which I have heard in this House have taken much more time. One of the best was made by my right hon. Friend when he came back from Palestine and almost changed the policy of the Government by one speech. If he had done so, he would have saved a sea of bloodshed. He could not have made that speech in 15 minutes because he had to deploy his facts. I remember a speech, which I did not hear but which I read, by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) on the Hola Camp. That was not made in 15 minutes. The great speeches by Winston Church in the 1930s were great Parliamentary occasions, but they could not have been made in 15 minutes. Nor could the speech by Aneurin Bevan in 1942, in a House of Commons freezing in hostility against him, have been delivered in 15 minutes.
We should be very chary about taking a step which, if it had been applied in the past, would have muzzled the greatest Parliamentarians of recent times, the people who have made the place famous. Moreover, the idea that putting a limit of 30 minutes to speeches from the Front Bench and 15 minutes—or even worse, 10 minutes—on back-bench speakers would assist back-benchers is an extraordinary notion. It would weight the scales even more in favour of the Front Benches because 30 minutes is plenty of time, but a back-bencher, who may be expressing views against the wishes of the whole House, needs time to do so. One of the great virtues of this place is that the majority, however large, has to listen to the minority, however small, and the smallest minorities of all require more time. I hope that we shall be very cautious about proceeding with this proposal. I would vote against it in order that the whole matter may be considered afresh.
The second matter concerns the most essential reform to be made in the immediate business of this place—Standing Order No. 9. It is absurd, and recognised as absurd throughout the country, that when great major matters blow up quickly we have to go through the long paraphernalia of bombarding Ministers to get debates which are urgent. We have to waste a lot of time in that way. We waste time every Thursday going through the

machinery of trying to represent to the Government what debates should take place. I am not saying that we should exclude that altogether—I would not dream of suggesting that—but we must have a system under which much more frequently we can have immediate debates on matters that blow up suddenly and are of urgent importance, but that must not be under the old precedents. The virtue of the recommendations of the Committee is that it murders all the precedents. That is the merit of what the Committee has proposed.
I should like the proposal about the Standing Order to go further. Five debates of this character in a Session is not sufficient. We should look at that question again. From the interests of my right hon. Friend I can see another reason why he might wish to delay a decision on this matter. This proposal about Standing Order No. 9 would assist the Opposition—all Oppositions. All of us would be grateful for having it. That may be one of the reasons why the Government would like to have a quid pro quo. I am not so innocent in these matters as I may look and I do not blame the Government altogether. I can see occasions which might occur when my right hon. Friend may wish to coax hon. Members opposite into agreeing with other reforms. I should be the last person who would wish to send my right hon. Friend naked into the usual channels. Let him take this as one of the bargaining counters he has with the Opposition, on the assurance—I absolutely accept that he is as eager as we are to get reform of this matter—that he will bring a proposition before us which, when it is examined, will go further even than the proposal made by the Select Committee on Procedure.
My fear about some of the reforms which have been proposed, despite my eagerness to get the kind of reform which I have been advocating in relation to Standing Order No. 9, is that this appalling idea of a consensus in politics should become more prevalent. My opposition to Select Committees—I do not propose now to go over the argument again—arises precisely because I think that their concept gives further colour to the idea of a consensus in politics. Anybody with any experience of Committees upstairs knows that the cosier the atmosphere the


less the clash between the parties. I am in favour of the clash between the parties. I am in favour of the clash between the parties and the debate inside the parties being in the open, because the public has a right to hear them. The clash at elections should be reflected in the House of Commons.
I do not like the idea that we should abandon these clashes. Indeed, if the process continues of leaders of political parties saying that the only people that matter are the floating voters, soon the only people who will be voting will be the floating voters. They will be the only ones we can capture. All the rest will be sunk—sunk because they do not see their policies and what they thought they voted for at elections properly represented in debates in the House.
The doctrine I believe in is the doctrine of Disraeli, who said: "Above all, maintain the line of demarcation between parties, for it is only by maintaining the independence of party that you can maintain the integrity of public men and the power, and the power and influence of Parliament itself".
All reforms which are made should be designed for the purpose of ensuring that the real argument between the parties is able to come out into the open on the Floor of the House of Commons. I include in this the discussions between the parties, because these are matters in which the public is entitled to join. If there are to be Select Committees, they should be thrown open to the public. Above all, we must not take measures which will drain away the political vitality from this place. If that is done, something will be destroyed which it will be very difficult to recreate.

7.52 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington: The first thing I ought to say is how very much I agree with what the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) said about the position of the Clerks. The Clerks are working under really tremendous pressure. The Clerk who is looking after the sub-committee of which I am a Member has, in addition to looking after that sub-committee, another Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee to

look after and also the joint committee with another place on the censorship of plays. That is too much work to expect a person to do in the way which these complicated matters require. I do not see any reason why, if an effort is made to fill the present gaps and if additional establishment can be agreed with the Treasury, this position could not be sorted out.
I fear that we are getting rather into a muddle in connection with the Specialist Committees. It was suggested by the Procedure Committee that a new committee should be formed to control subcommittees, which should be given descriptive names. Previously, it had always been a question of Estimates Sub-Committees being entitled A, B, C, D and E. Names have now been given. In two cases they are very similar to the names now given to Specialist Committees. I have in mind the Technological and Scientific Affairs Sub-Committee and the Building and Natural Resources Sub-Committee. There is now a Specialist Committee on Science and Technology. There is also besides the Building and Natural Reserves Sub-Committee and a Select Committee on Agriculture amongst the Specialist Committees.
Nobody seems to have come to a decision as to quite where the boundary is between the Estimates Sub-Committee and the Specialist Sub-Committee. It is suggested that there should be a steering committee which would be responsible for allocating the business of both the Estimates Sub-Committee and the Specialist Sub-Committee. I am not at all happy about that, because nobody has arrived at a distinction between the two. Both can operate. It is probably a good thing that both should operate. The basis on which they should do so is not at all clear.
The Fourth Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, Session 1964–65, approved a statement by the Clerk Assistant in this form:
it is really an attempt to put these Committees "—
that is, the new Committees—
on, roughly speaking, the same sort of order of reference as the present Nationalised Industries Committee have, and in their case I think they can go a little further than the Estimates can. For instance, when they reported on the gas industry they were enabled to set out with all the background and details the argument


between the Lurgi plant and the importation of methane. They gave all the facts about that and then they expressed a few conclusions but pointed out that it was a decision that must be taken by the Minister.… I rather doubt whether the Estimates Committee would have felt that they could have gone quite as far as that, supposing they were investigating, say, the Ministry of Health, and they found there was some scheme going on for entirely reorganising the Health Service or that there were alternative schemes.
The complication is that the Estimates Committee has the duty and power of going into the Estimates. The Second Special Report passed by the Select Committee on Science and Technology—this is the Specialist Committee—says this:
Your Committee have come to the conclusion that their main object should be to examine national scientific and technological expenditure together with the skills and use of manpower and resources involved, in both the public and the private sectors, in order to discover whether full value for money is being obtained.
That is a worthy object, but it cuts right across the Estimates investigation, should that be made. Unless a distinction is drawn, I fear that there may be double-doing and waste of time between the two bodies.

Mr. Palmer: The new Select Committee on Science and Technology sees its duty as looking into future policy and not just holding inquests on what has happened in the past.

Sir E. Errington: The Estimates Committee deals with future policy to some extent. I agree that one can envisage wider future policy being possible as a subject, but the terms of the Resolution of the Science and Technology Specialist Committee might be considered so wide as to include the Estimates Committee's problems.
Lord Butler had a phrase which is extremely helpful in this connection. He thought that the Estimates Committee was entitled to investigate, and should investigate, what he called "administrative policy", that is, the policy of the administration of the Estimates which are passed by the House. That is infinitely narrower than the purview of the Specialist Committee. I fear that, unless something is done, by some arrangement or some Committee—I do not know whether the Select Committee on Procedure ought to consider the question—it will not be satisfactory for there to be an "argy-bargy" in a

steering committee, even one chaired by the Leader of the House.
This matter can be helped a little by restoring to the Sub-Committees of the Estimates Committee their letters instead of their nomenclatures, which cover almost anything within a very wide circle. I regard these descriptions for the Estimates Sub-Committees as unsatisfactory. They do not mean anything and may be open to misunderstanding. I hope, therefore, that someone will be prepared to make an effort to put the two sets of Committees on parallel lines rather than on lines crossing one another. This will be for the benefit of all concerned.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. William Hamling: My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) made an admirable speech, admirable also in length, being in line with a good deal that has been said today about the need for shorter speeches. He took 10 minutes. Nevertheless, I have no doubt—I agree with him here—that on other occasions when there is a passionate debate taking place in the Chamber and when really great national issues are being discussed, it would be appropriate for my hon. Friend to take 20 minutes or even half an hour.
I agree with what my hon. Friend said on the question of length of speeches. This is a difficult point to make, but it seems to me that a good many hon. Members favour short speeches but do not deliver them. I think that this illustrates the conviction of the House that we do not favour any limitation on speeches or any change of the kind which my right hon. Friend has suggested.
I do not agree, however, with what my hon. Friend said about Select Committees. He is, of all hon. Members, perhaps, the greatest traditionalist in that he conceives of the House, as Churchill did, as being the great national forum of debate where great national issues are thrashed out, perhaps in the manner of our Victorian grandfathers, with fine oratory on both sides.
The House of Commons is other things as well. It has other things to do. When my hon. Friend attacks Select Committees, he overlooks that some of our Select Committees do a job which this House, as he would like it to be. could not do.


The Select Committee challenges the Executive. I think, for example, of the Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee of which my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards) is chairman. That Committee has done a great deal on defence matters to challenge the Executive and to challenge successive Governments.
As a Member of the Estimates Committee, I do not consider that there is a cosy atmosphere which kills any sense of criticism directed towards the Treasury Bench. In fact, it is the other way. Very often, by uniting Members from that side and from this, we can make even stronger attacks on the Government than might otherwise be possible. After all, there is a strong opposition to the Executive on this side of the House, and not only below the Gangway. There are two oppositions in the House, one over there and one here. If the two oppositions unite now and again, perhaps that is a good thing.

Mr. C. Pannell: For different reasons.

Mr. Hamling: For different reasons, of course. Certainly, the Select Committee on Procedure has shown that it is the place where the will to change is stronger than anywhere else in the House, certainly stronger than in this Chamber as just the debating chamber of the House of Commons. A great deal of the initiative for change in procedure has come from the Select Committee. One may well ask why, if it comes in this Parliament from the Select Committee on Procedure, it did not come in the Parliament before last. The reason is the presence on the Committee of so many Labour people, new people. The cosy atmosphere of which my hon. Friend speaks may exist to some extent—

Mr. C. Pannell: I have been a member of Select Committees on Procedure over a good deal of time. Will my hon. Friend look back at the Reports produced in 1958 and 1959? He will find that a solid minority of Labour Members were advocating the changes which are now greeted as novel. What is now daylight clear to everyone was at least dimly apparent to them all those years ago.

Mr. Hamling: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right because he was one

of the minority. I was not. If the electors of West Woolwich had had a bit of sense, and if the electors of many other marginal constituencies had had a bit more sense, back in 1955, we would have had a majority on that Committee then, and we would have brought change forward. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) will vote for these changes tonight. Why did he not favour them in 1958? He was here, and so were the members of his Front Bench, but they did not do it. It seems to me that Select Committees, certainly as they are operated in this Parliament, are doing a satisfactory job.
I must say, in spite of the reference to 1958 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Mr. C. Pannell), that the changes proposed in today's Orders are rather modest. Perhaps I came here expecting far more violent changes in the constitution than I have a right to expect. I have always been ambitious. When one has been trying to get elected for so long, one does, I suppose, become rather ambitious to change things very quickly.
Not much has come. In the 17th century, Parliament cut off the head of a King, the Lord's Anointed, yet here we are, in the 20th century, so timid that we cannot even make fundamental changes in Parliament. We do not seem to have progressed very far. Parliament nowadays seems to be much more modest than the Parliament of the 17th century. Knowing the attachment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale to the cause of Cromwell—

Mr. Michael Foot: John Lilburne is my man.

Mr. Hamling: John Lilburne was even more violent than Cromwell.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: No.

Mr. Hamling: Yes, he was.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: He became a Quaker.

Mr. Hamling: Well, that was old age. The question to ask here is whether, despite the modesty of the changes, we are happy with some of those that have already been made. Let us consider the way morning


sittings—second-class morning sittings—operate. I do not come to them, because I do not regard them as being significant enough as a change. They are not genuine sittings of the House. The House still sits late. I came to our first morning sitting it is the only one I have attended. We sat all night the same day. When I got home the next morning my wife said to me, "Are you trying to tell me seriously that the first day you have a morning sitting you then sit all night?"

Mr. C. Pannell: Perhaps she did not believe my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hamling: She believed me. She knows that I always tell her the truth. She asked, "Whose planning was that?" I had to say that it was not mine.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Perhaps I may mention in support of what the hon. Gentleman is saying that in February, 1966, the doorkeepers' hours were 49½ a week. This year, with a supposed curtailment, they went up to 59½. In February, 1966, the policemen did 626 hours' overtime. When we were supposed to be cutting down their hours because of the morning sittings, their overtime went up to 833 hours. Those are significant pointers to support tie hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hamling: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has supplied me with information that reinforces what I am about to say concerning the servants of the House.
Morning sittings have placed a burden on some Members—not all, because there are still too many part-time Members. I am reminded of the writings of Andrew Roth. There are far too many Members with far too many business interests outside and not giving enough attention to the House. If the morning sittings become permanent and there is a proliferation of Select Committees, Specialist Committees and the rest, some Members will find the physical strain of serving the House too much. We know what has happened in the last few years. The health of some of our right hon. and hon. Friends on both sides of the House has broken down, and I believe that that is because they have tried to do too much in this place.
The way in which morning sittings operate at present is a scandal. How

many Members have not sat on any Committees in the past 12 months, and why not? Are some Members considered to be more full-time than others? At present one Standing Committee meets three times a week—twice on Thursdays and once on Tuesdays, and we have morning sittings as well.

Mr. David Mitchell: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hamling: The hon. Member who shouted that is a Whip. I always have a feeling for Whips, though I will not say what it is sometimes.
London Members will be expected to be here on a Monday morning. They already keep the House going on a Friday, and if it were not for the London Members—the Greater London Members, for I must remember my right hon. Friend in Bexley—

Mr. C. Pannell: A Yorkshire Member.

Mr. Hamling: The right hon. Gentleman lives in Bexley. He is just over the border from where I live. We keep the House going on a Friday, and I see him in Woolwich market on a Friday.
We must do something about late sittings and all-night sittings. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) spoke about the doorkeepers. There are 48 hours in two days, yet a short time ago some doorkeepers did 49½ hours' work on Monday and Tuesday. Miracles happen in this place. What figures has my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the increase in hours worked by doorkeepers here since the morning sittings started? He may not know them.
We are entitled to demand that those who work for us have decent hours. Many trade unionists sit on this side of the House. They would have deputations and lobbies to the Prime Minister seven days a week if their members were expected to work the sort of hours worked by the servants of the House. Not only the doorkeepers are affected. There are also the people in the refreshment department, the women who work in the tearooms. They are working longer hours since the morning sittings started. It is a scandal, and I expect the Leader of the House to do something about it.
If we want to make idiots of ourselves and kill ourselves by overwork, that is up to us, but we have no right to expect the servants of the House to do it.

8.15 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I support the plea of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Hamling) that the House should give attention to the extra burdens it is putting on its servants when it gaily entered into morning sittings and does not curtail all-night sittings. The figures I gave when I intervened in the hon. Gentleman's speech show the 10 hours a week increase that there has been in doorkeepers' hours this year compared with last. The total police overtime is up from 626 hours to 833. We have the responsibility not to enter gaily into reforms which put extra burdens on them, because if we are not properly served Parliament will not work.
Having agreed with the hon. Gentleman on that, I must part company with him on almost all his other points. Change for the sake of change is not necessarily right. It is not without significance, as he admitted, that it is when one comes here as an exuberant new Member with the desire to make one's mark that one wants to see sudden changes. The others have not suddenly become old and decrepit, but after years of experience they find merit in what seemed to be an outmoded way of running the House.

Mr. Hamling: I still want to make radical changes.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not been here long enough. He is a schoolmaster and knows that some people are slow at study. Perhaps by the time he gets to the sixth form some of the ideas lie now finds so attractive will be shown by experience to have weaknesses.
I do not agree that we want the House to be filled with full-time Members. One will always have Members who give more time to it than others. It must be representative of the nation, and I have always thought that in making it representative of the nation it will have people, properly elected as very good Members, who cannot carry on with their outside jobs and professions. They are the Members who find that they can give time to running the machinery of the House, and they

make a great contribution. But because that suits that group, it does not follow that members of the other group, also with a great contribution to make, should not keep their outside contact with the world.
If one is to sit in this rarefied atmosphere and simply read the briefs sent from outside and form one's views and take one's action on them, one is acting on hearsay. The strength of this assembly, compared with many others, is that the people who make the final decision by their vote are to a large extent those who feel the effect of the legislation they are passing in their work. It will strengthen Parliament if we can continue that without undermining or weakening Parliament.

Mr. C. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman is stating the position wrongly. The real position is that the House demands at least 350 Members attending full time if it is to work at all. They are the solid core. They are the P.B.I. of the place. The rest are very often Members on both sides who blow in, blow up, and blow out. It is a question of the gentlemen and the players. So long as those 350 are recognised as class A Members while the others are class B, that is all right. But if one reads the leader writer of The Times one finds that it is viewed the other way round.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The last thing I would ever have thought that one could charge the right hon. Gentleman with he now proves he possesses. He has an inferiority complex. If ever there was a right hon. or hon. Gentleman that I would have thought to possess a superiority complex, it was he. But now he admits that he has an inferiority complex.
But, even accepting his figure of 350 Members needed to keep the machinery of the House going, why should we ask the other 300 to put themselves in exactly the same position? They can be making their contribution by moving around the country and the world, doing their job, getting experience from it and giving the benefit of that experience here and adding it to the hard work done by the others, thus making this a first-class Parliament. That is how it works, and even the right hon. Gentleman has to say that we do not want 630 Members about the Palace of Westminster the whole time.
I do not want to over-charge this issue. I was merely disagreeing with the hon. Member for Woolwich, West about his claim that Parliament can only do good work if we have 630 full-time Members here. I say that that would not be doing a service to Parliament. This House is based on a Parliamentary system in which, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, we have to have the clash of thought, of knowledge and of experience. It is a good thing that some hon. Members should be able to go out and gain some of that experience.
I want to add my voice to that of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. On the same grounds of argument that I have tried to raise on the question of part-time and full-time membership, I am sure that he is quite right. We cannot restrict the length of speeches. Some can make a speech in five minutes because they have the speed that goes with it. Others want time to develop their arguments. I agree with the hon. Gentleman 100 per cent.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) is here. He was my opponent in a General Election many years ago. I have often disagreed with him, but I have heard him deploy arguments to which Parliament, quite rightly, has listened carefully. He has rarely taken under 10 or 15 minutes in doing so. I would not deny him, with all his knowledge and his years in the House and his skill in presenting a case, the time in which to make his case. I would not want to see some written rule that in 15 minutes, half-way through his argument, he must sit down, with the House losing the whole burden of what he wanted to say.
I do not think that we should say that we can regulate by some time clock how long a Member should speak. An hon. Member soon finds out—and I myself have been a victim of this—how long his hon. Friends want to listen to him. Pressures can be brought to bear. Reputations can be built up and knocked down. This, I believe, will have the right effect in cutting down the sort of speeches that we do not want to have at great length.
But let us not write it all down or think that the whole fountain of wisdom springs from the Front Benches, which should be given a licence to go on to any length. The back benches have a

very great contribution to make as well. I support the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale in his attitude to this proposal. He and I recognise the trend. It is right that this resistance to it should be put on record.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: The proposal is not to increase the time given to Government speakers but to redistribute the time that back benchers share among themselves when the pressure is heavy.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I understood the Leader of the House to say that Mr. Speaker would have discretion to state that during the hours of, say, 5 o'clock till 8 o'clock, a back bencher must confine himself to 15 minutes. But the opening and closing speeches would be able to go on. I say that the pearls may be coming between 5 o'clock and 8 o'clock. I do not believe that we can put that sort of rein on if we are to allow Parliament to give of its best.
My other point concerns Standing Order No. 9. We have to find some way of allowing urgent matters of importance to be debated. Again, I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that this is the forum for national and international questions that affect the nation to be debated. Things blow up quickly. Many important issues suddenly arise where the influence of the House could be brought to bear if only its voice could be heard.
But under the precedent system of Standing Order No. 9, such a thing is never allowed to happen. I have been in the House for 18 years and in that time to my recollection on only two or three occasions has an emergency debate been allowed under the rigid precedent system which applies. So anything that can be done to give Mr. Speaker the freedom to take a broader decision on matters of importance and to rid himself of the precedents and restrictions under Standing Order No. 9 will be to the good. If we gave up the precedent reason for not allowing a debate and brought forward modern arguments for saying that it could not be done, I would accept that. But Parliament will not be able to do its job on these important occasions unless we are allowed to make our voice heard.
Having spoken of these matters which affect the nation and the House, I finish by again reminding right hon. and hon.


Members that whether or not we are able to do our job will depend on how well we are serviced by the servants of the House, and that we should not put a greater burden on them—the doorkeepers, the workers in the restaurants, the clerks or anyone else—than they can bear. I hope that we shall always keep that in mind when giving any advice to the Government as to the sort of procedures under which we wish to work.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) rightly drew attention to what he called the tyranny of the Session. I thought that he stated the problem perhaps better than the solution. I agree with the idea that we are elected, in the eyes of the country at large, as a Parliament and that we should, when legislating, allow legislation to run on during that Parliament. But unlike my right hon. Friend, I do not even see the need for a second Second Reading. Legislation should continue during the Parliament and should not be just chopped off in part each year.
I want to draw attention to the tyranny of the day. This is almost as effective as the tyranny of the Session. I have never been able to understand why it should be that a controversial Measure such as the Iron and Steel Act should take exactly as long on Second Reading as an almost non-controversial Measure. We have improved this situation slightly by introducing the Second Reading Committee and so forth, but when we get a Bill which is just a little more controversial, but upon which the Opposition do not intend to vote, it still has the same length of time as a controversial Bill which has a three-line Whip out on both sides. This is really ridiculous and, with respect to you, Mr. Speaker, and to your colleagues, part of this may be because of the practices that have grown up in this House with regard to the question of when the Closure may or may not be moved.
There is almost an unofficial rule that one cannot have less than a couple of hours' debate on almost any subject before a Closure is accepted by the Chair. It seems that we might well get away from the principle of dealing with the

day, to a substantial extent, and start thinking in terms of Parliament being a continuous affair, dealing with particular pieces of business and then going on to the next business, irrespective of whether it is the next day or the same day. This would not apply to highly controversial Measures, but it would apply to a lot that we do here.
I would also like to suggest that when we are talking of morning sittings, we should think not solely of full-time versus part-time Members. So far this issue has been discussed very much in those terms. People who have jobs outside naturally do not want to be tied to the House so that they cannot do them, while others believe that this is a good idea. I would suggest that we do not adopt any scheme that will cause Members to have less contact in the provinces with their constituencies as compared with the London-based Members. It is extremely important that we do not get into the position, merely for the sake of appearing to be good boys in the eyes of the public, of adopting a system whereby we start at 10.30 a.m. in order to finish at 5.30 p.m. or 6.0 p.m.
This would be very nice for anyone who lived in London or whose family was in London. It would have the immediate effect of causing provincial Members to bring their families to London, but it would also have the effect that provincial Members would return less frequently to their constituencies. That is not what the constituencies want. Where we might achieve results which would suit both Members and their constituents would be if we started at, say, mid-day on Monday, finished at a reasonable time such as 10 p.m. or 10.30 p.m., and then on the next three days met for 12 hours from 10.30 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. Then we should leave the Member with Friday free—the House would meet on four days and we would get in slightly more hours than we do now.
This would enable the Member to go home, or to his constituency on one day in the week, or he would be given a day when he would be free for such activities as the research mentioned by certain hon. Members. He would have this and Parliament would have more time for legislation. This is a possible solution which we ought to consider.
It is impossible in a debate of this character to make a reasonable speech and to speak on every topic. It has been said by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that it is a piecemeal debate. It was a little strange that he should have said that, because the form of the debate is governed by him. I would like to refer to something which has not appeared in any of the Reports of the Select Committee on Procedure. Whilst the Reports have in many respects been excellent about procedure upon the Floor of the House, they have been pretty poor about procedure in Committees.
They have almost ignored this question, whilst at the same time this House is—with certain exceptions like my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot)—trying to increase the power and use of Committees. Apart from the Report that my right hon. Friend mentioned which the Committee is to produce, there ought to be a Report on the whole functioning of Committees of the House. Indeed it has become apparent from the way that the debate has almost changed from discussing the questions before us to discussing the question of Committees and their staffing how important this is.
To take one example, in the Report dealing with Methods of Voting it is quite rightly said that one could not apply electronic methods of voting, proving the point that I made previously, that it was a waste of the Committee's time considering the issue, instead of devoting its time to more important subjects. The Committee never mentioned what an immense assistance it would be to Members of Parliament if they were not tied to a Committee where they have, if they are Government back benchers, little influence as in a Standing Committee on a controversial Bill.
It would be a great assistance if a simple electronic device could be produced, enabling a Member to be anywhere on the premises doing some other work, and which would tell him when there was a Division. The Committee never mentioned, discussed or considered this, or so the Report shows, although it was quite clearly well within its terms of reference. I hope that this omission will be corrected.
With regard to the Finance Bill, on page vi of the relevant Report, the Com-

mittee very cavalierly dismisses the whole idea of putting this Bill upstairs in Committee, and allowing Members to come in and speak on it. The Committee dismisses in one sentence the possibility of solving the problem by allowing a Member to come in and move an Amendment, even though he is not a member of the Committee and has no vote there.
From this one-sentence dismissal, one would not dream that it has been the practice of this House for centuries, until the last century. One would not dream that it was the traditional practice of the House, but it is, and was dropped only in the last century. I should have thought that a practice which had gone on for so long deserved a little more consideration than a one-sentence dismissal.
The problem is that many hundreds of Members are kept on these premises whether they like it or not, whether they are interested in the whole of the Finance Bill or not. Even if they wished to move an Amendment to one part of the Bill, they may not be interested in the 97 or 297 other Clauses. Members would not be tied to debates in which they were not interested and more time would be given for debates under Standing Order No. 9 and other debates of that kind in which they were interested.
If it is said that this would be rather difficult because Members would be coming and going, surely this is what a Procedure Committee is for. Surely its purpose is not to state a minor problem and then dismiss the principle, but to consider the principle and then—if it decides that the principle is good—to consider how to solve the minor problems. I should have thought that this was what committees were for.
Therefore, whilst I support the Motions before us—and I think that the Leader of the House deserves congratulation for many of the points which he has put forward—I do not think that timetabling the Finance Bill is the solution to the criticism of the average back-bencher that the summer is taken up and Members are stuck on these premises unwilling to talk about what may be a highly technical subject and unable to talk about something in which they are interested, whether it be family allowances or Vietnam.
Finally, I wish to mention the question of the staffing of Committees. I hope that we shall not assume that everything in our garden is lovely and that we want, for examples, more Clerks of the House. We must consider what is the function of Clerks of Committees. In my view, they should merely be a committee secretary. It seems to me that with a Specialist Committee a Clerk who is unspecialised in all but procedure is not appropriate to staff it for other purposes. This is the point of giving Specialist Committees the right to select staff and to give, say, two-year contracts to university people. It does not follow that a person who is an ideal clerk of the House is an ideal person to find out about the technicalities of, say, agriculture or science and technology. Therefore, we must consider very carefully what sort of staff we want as well as the number of staff we want.
This is not as simple a problem as it seems. It is about time that we gave the House of Commons (Services) Committee control over our own staff. One of the peculiarities is that staff of similar calibre like librarians and clerks have different conditions and different hours of work for reasons which are by no means apparent. This matter would involve legislation. We need our own committee with control over the staff and establishments, subject to the Treasury, their duties and conditions of work. It is about time that the House had control of its staff in that way. Then it could appropriately decide their duties.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, I very much support the idea of the Specialist Committee. I want to see it made a success. I want Committees as a whole to be used more effectively. The Select Committee on Procedure must consider the procedure of Standing Committees when considering legislation. If we can put the technicalities of legislation and the cross-examination of Ministers, into such Committees, then we shall have freed the Floor of the House for debates of major principle and the clash of issues which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale wants. I do not see how we can have the clash of the party battle on the Floor of the Chamber which he wants unless we take the little snippings on

details away from that battle on the Floor into a Committee.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: This debate is really about how we can increase our productivity and how we can get the organisation of the House on to a more business-like footing. A lot of the speeches which we have heard today have been concerned with the traditions of the House, rather than with comparing our work with that of a business organisation.
I have read the Reports and listened to practically the whole debate. The first fundamental principle which has not been mentioned by any hon. Member is that it is possible to read twice as fast as one can speak. Too many people have assumed that the only way to do anything in Parliament is by talking.
No one appears to have appreciated the different functions which Parliament has to carry on. There are three fundamental functions, all of which require a different approach because, fundamentally, they are different ideas. One of the functions of Parliament is to legislate, or to manufacture new laws. I admit at once that there are too many of them. But, in manufacturing new laws, Parliament needs to adopt a manufacturing process, because is that what we are doing?
When we come to the very important matter of dealing with the problems of our constituents, a different technique and procedure is required from that which we adopt when we come to deal with national issues, where great, passionate speeches can be made which we hope will sway the House. Quite another procedure has to apply in that case.
If one compares the proceedings of this House with those of a board of directors, one remembers the occasions when one sits in this Chamber from 2.30 p.m. onwards without any idea of when, if ever, one will be called. If I were to ask any member of my board of directors to sit for six and a half hours in those circumstances, he would not stay for a moment.
It is suggested that a Front Bench spokesman should be given half an hour to introduce the Second Reading of a Bill. To me, that is utter nonsense. As the chairman of a large public company,


I should not expect one of my chief executives to introduce a new manufacturing process to the board and talk about it for half an hour without putting forward any prior facts. It is sheer nonsense.
To start with, when a Bill is produced it has appended to it a memorandum of explanation which says a little about the Bill. Then we come to the House in all innocence trying to understand what it does mean, and we listen to a Minister taking half an hour or three-quarters of an hour to explain it to us. Surely what he should do, instead of producing a memorandum of explanation, it to produce his Second Reading speech in much the same way as one would when introducing a new method to a board of directors. The Minister should be given not the half hour which my right hon. and hon. Friends are suggesting, but 10 minutes to explain the fundamental factors which are in his printed Second Reading speech.
Think of the advantages. Hon. Members would come to the debate with more idea of the Bill. They would be able to consult their constituents and know whether or not they had any problems. They would have the opportunity to consult any affected organisation, which quite rightly would be in close contact with them. In that way, they would be able to make a fundamental contribution.
It should be remembered also that a Second Reading is followed by a Committee stage. I suggest that it is in Committee that the speeches should be made. I see no reason why we should not get two Second Readings in a day on all but very important Bills.
Now let us consider the other end of the day, the Adjournment debate. I put this to the Select Committee, but got no response. Sometimes at Two o'clock in the morning a Member puts up a constituent's case, and, by Jove, I defend that right to the last ditch. It is one of our fundamental rights that be should be able to do so. But if someone were to say to the Chairman of I.C.I., "I have a disgruntled shareholder here. Will you see him at two o'clock in the morning?", what answer would he get? If he were to say to the Chairman, "Not only have I a disgruntled shareholder who wants to see you at two o'clock in the morning, but it will not be before then that he

will tell you what he wants to see you about", what would he say? Yet we expect a Minister to stay up all night to hear a speech lasting perhaps a quarter of an hour, a speech which has been written out anyway, and then he replies.
For that process we keep going the whole machinery of the Palace of Westminster—the doorkeepers, the policemen, and perhaps three Members in the Chamber, plus Mr. Speaker. This goes on for half an hour. What sense is there in that? Surely it would be very much better if the speech for the Adjournment were written out on the Order Paper as a Question every day so that other hon. Members who might have a constituency interest in the matter could decide whether they could make a contribution to the debate? That would make more sense. If that were done, the Minister would have an opportunity to get the proper data from his Department to reply to the debate.
If it is a question of catching the Minister at two o'clock in the morning, if that is the game that Parliament is going to play, all I can say is that it is a darned silly one. But if we are to get the maximum benefit out of the time, let us remember that what takes a quarter of an hour to say only takes five minutes to read, and other Members could perhaps make a real contribution to the discussion.
I think that we are beginning to get a modernised Parliament. We have to forget that a book was written that claimed that this is government by conversation. It ought to be government in the most efficient way, by adopting the best traditions of the House, and the best business approach, and this is where we are lacking.
I am full of admiration for the servants of the House. I have sat on the Estimates Committee, and on the Public Accounts Committee, and I have never met a more efficient organisation. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) said that the Clerk to the Committee should not go out into the wilderness and get information, that he should be a secretary. If we want only a clerk-secretary, let us not employ the talents that we do. It is the ability of these servants of the House which provide the contribution which we require. When we sit as Members of the Estimates Committee or of


the Public Accounts Committee, we are both judge and jury. It is a difficult position to be in and we must have counsel's help to cross-question the witnesses who appear before us.

Mr. English: I did not dispute that the Clerks should be specialists in something, such as the procedure of the House. I was saying that they might not be the appropriate specialists for the subject matter of the Specialist Committees.

Mr. Costain: I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
Of all the Members who have been limited to time, I gather that I am the most limited. I have sat here the longest, but I have to give way for the winding-up speeches.
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that great benefit is derived in the Estimates Committee and in the Public Accounts Committee because a Memorandum is produced of what is to happen. It is a Memorandum telling one what one should know about, and, by gosh, one can do one's homework because of it. In this Chamber we live with the mystery of not knowing when we are to be called, how we will be called, or why we are going to be called. In the other place the speakers know the precise order of being called.
Too many hon. Members come into the House, as I did and as other hon. Members did, to make maiden speeches and to think that they will always be called—because of the congratulations which they receive on that maiden speech. One is told by a Whip to be ready to speak again the following week. I spent a Sunday afternoon and a Sunday evening preparing a speech, then I sat in the House and missed my tea and my dinner and was not called. What happens is that on the next occasion one does only half one's homework, and when the time comes when one is called, one has forgotten to do any homework.
If we are to use Members of Parliament with efficiency, we have to cut down the wastage of their time, and every time a Member of Parliament does his homework for a speech and is not called, that is a waste of time. We therefore need some guidance about when we shall be called and the order in which we shall be called. In deciding how much time we

should be allowed, while the Speaker should be given some large measure of tolerance, much should depend on the subject matter of the debate, whether it is a national, or an individual, or a legislative matter. Of those, the last on the Floor of the House is the least important. I see no reason why the Third Reading of any Bill should require more than speakers from the Front Benches winding up.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: I understand that I have about minus two minutes in which to make this speech, and so I come immediately to the core of my argument.
The most urgent need of the House is a thorough-going and radical reform of its Committee structure. It is quite impossible for a Legislature of this size to carry out the effective scrutiny of the activities of the Executive, legislate and order its own business and generally conduct the affairs of the nation without an efficient system of Committees. It therefore follows that I am entirely in favour of the proposition that the Finance Bill, among others, should go to Committee and be considered upstairs. In a body of 600, 500, or 300 people, there is no virtue in trying to debate the intricacies of financial legislation. If it is argued that in fact that number of hon. Members is not present, that becomes a conclusive argument for sending the Bill to Standing Committee.
The creation of Specialist Committees is an important advance, but it means that the House will have to look at the whole system of Committees unless we are to create confusion and overlap. So far as I know, there are at least three Committees—the Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee, the Select Committee on Science and Technology itself and the Public Accounts Committee—which concern themselves with scientific and technological matters. There is bound to be some overlap and waste unless there is coordination and a more coherent system.
Nevertheless, the possibility of debating in Committee scientific and technological problems is of the highest importance. We have only to look back over the past 12 months at how often the House as a whole has had the opportunity to debate aspects of science and technology to see


how important it is that some Specialist Committees should have the opportunity to probe these problems in depth.
One hon. Member opposite said that the only power of the Opposition was the power to delay. I think that to that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) would add the power of public debate and discussion. However, there is a third power which in this age is of even greater importance. That is the power of investigation. But the House cannot investigate the activities of the Government and cannot investigate all the complicated subjects in which we are expected to legislate and operate unless there is proper machinery to carry out the investigation, and this proper machinery must carry with it the construction of a systematic Committee organisation, and, as several hon. Members have said, proper staffing.
I do not wish to interrupt the course of the debate further, except to say that I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on pressing on with the thankless task of the reform of our procedure. He will not get much gratitude for it. His speech fell into two parts. The first was a cautious coaxing of the House along the path of reform, but the second, towards the end, appeared to be a flash of impatience and a desire to get on with the job and do something radical and thoroughgoing. I hope that he intends to bend his tremendous intellectual energies and political talent towards a thoroughgoing political reform of the House.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: One subject on which we are all agreed is that it is wrong that we should have an insufficient career structure and insufficient rewards for those who serve us. Whatever results from the debate, I hope that the Lord President will go to the Chancellor and have that remedied at an early date.
The debate has been handicapped by the necessity to consider too many Reports in one evening. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this form of debate. We on the Select Committee have been given five different instructions in the last 12 or 18 months and told that the House wanted an urgent reply on each. We worked overtime to produce them. Yet all these Reports are

being discussed now, in many cases six months or more after we made our Report. The first Report now under discussion was made in August and it is now the middle of April. I hope that this will not happen again.
We made certain recommendations in our Reports. First is the subject of morning sittings. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) made some people think that there had been a measure of agreement in the Select Committee. I must point out that the Committee's recommendations, which were slightly different from those adopted by the Government, were opposed by the Conservative and Liberal Members on the Committee; that is the only Report which was not agreed. There was a Division on whether it should be made to the House.
Considering morning sittings, I am reminded of the evidence of Mr. Gaitsskell when commenting on the proposal of the 1959 Report, when he said:
… there is a danger that you might get … in the mornings a very poor attendance at these debates, and I think it would be bad for the prestige of the House—much worse than it is in the evening—if between eleven and one debates take place and there are not more than half-a-dozen people in the Chamber. You will have the public coming round much more then, and the whole thing would look rather bad.
In fact, this is what has been happening since these sittings were introduced.
We must ask, what the right hon. Gentleman's intentions are towards morning sittings. He made an obscure remark about Monday mornings. He admitted that they had been a failure. How much longer is this failure to be allowed to continue? May we have an alteration in the system of morning sittings in the near future?
Many speakers have dealt with the question of shorter speeches. It has been made clear that the relevant Motion is quite different from the Report of the Select Committee. I agree very much with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) that what we recommended in paragraph 8 is not clear.
Certainly in our draft report our general idea was that the House should have a ruling that 15 minutes was the normal time for back bench speeches and 30 minutes for Front Bench speeches.


That was put clearly by the hon. Member for Northstead—[Laughter.]—the hon. Member for Northfield. However, the Motion is not only different from our idea but appears to be very like the recommendation made in 1959, on which Mr. Speaker commented adversely. Indeed, in evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure for the Session 1966–67, Mr. Speaker said:
… there was a suggestion from a preceding committee that there should be a period each day set aside for five-minute speeches: As a parliamentarian I would dislike this classification—this being the time when the great men make their uninhibited, long speeches, and this when the little boys are allowed five minutes.
The proposal has dangers, particularly when one considers the difficulty of Mr. Speaker in interpreting the amount of time to be allotted to each hon. Member. It would indeed mean dividing the day up between those who make uninhibited speeches, the great men, and the time when the little men make their comments. It would put too great a burden on Mr. Speaker and I hope that the Leader of the House will take the advice of his partner in crime in the old days, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and withdraw the Motion for further consideration. It clearly does not have the support of both sides of the House and, the matter having been aired, he should accept that instead of trying to limit hon. Members to a certain number of minutes, we should try to work it on a voluntary basis.
The most glaring omission from the Motion arises from the fact that on 13th July it was announced that the Select Committee on Procedure had been told by the Lord President's predecessor to give urgent consideration to Standing Order No. 9. The right hon. Gentleman the present Commonwealth Secretary, said:
I have said previously that there was something to look at here in that we now seem to have got into the position where Standing Order No. 9, because of precedents, is never allowed to operate".
We took it as a charge on us to find a quick and proper solution to this great problem. I believe that we have succeeded. We took evidence on this matter from Mr. Speaker, among others, and he stressed to us the great difficulty he was in because of the present operation of

Standing Order No. 9. He said, in answer to question No. 13:
There were two moments in the development of the Vietnam crisis when I felt both sides of the House really would have liked to have talked about Vietnam. It was almost immediately after that that the motion went down on the Order Paper, signed by a number of Members from both sides, asking for some relaxation of S.O. No. 9".
Later, in answer to Question No. 25, Mr. Speaker said:
I agree with Mr. Selwyn Lloyd in all he is aiming at. I would like to see an increase in the number of debates on urgent matters.
He went on to say:
If the Committee tackles it by Standing Order No. 9, by asking Mr. Speaker to change the habits of the last forty years, then he must be instructed on specific lines.
Answering Question 39, put to him by another hon. Member, Mr. Speaker said that the hon. Member
… is right in saying that citizens outside share the view of the bulk of the House: they would like more immediate, lively debates.
The Committee having been told in July to find a solution to this problem, and having brought forward a solution very much on the lines suggested by Mr. Speaker in evidence, it is tragic that today there is no Motion on this matter in the Government's name. In our Motion No. 8 we have put forward the Select Committee's recommendation.
The hon. Member for Northfield said that we had omitted the Motion for approving the Report but that was because I understood that the Lord President's Motion would have brought the recommendation in the Report to the notice of the House. Quite clearly, with this recommendation in Motion No. 8 is the suggestion that the Speaker should not give the reasons for his decision. I have heard many hon. Members talking about this suggestion, but they all seem to agree that this would be a very wise future method of avoiding precedents.
If our solution for Standing Order No. 9 is not the right one, I suggest that the Lord President should put forward another wording for that Standing Order. I believe that our change in the wording—which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) said was such a very small change—would bring us back to where we were in the middle or early part of the 20th century, when


there were about five urgent debates a Session. I do not think that we want the Order so relaxed that it becomes too easy for us to have urgent debates, but there are a number of matters affecting the liberty of the subject and also foreign affairs where it would be a great advantage to have the use of Standing Order No. 9.
What is the Lord President's view on this point? I notice that when he was being examined by us on Standing Order No. 9, the Chairman asked him:
… do you consider because of its terms and the accumulation of precedents that it has become too restrictive in its operation particularly to minorities in the House who wish to raise an urgent issue?
The Lord President replied:
It is highly convenient to the executive.
I am afraid that that is the attitude the right hon. Gentleman is taking to many of these suggestions for the reform of procedure.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale described the Lord President as a born reformer; I should describe him as a poacher turned gamekeeper. He has all the charm of a convert, with all the acquired skill of his nefarious past. I have noticed that the right hon. Gentleman is very apt to accept recommendations from a Select Committee on Procedure that strengthens the hand of the Executive, but is very reluctant to accept any recommendations that strengthen the hand of the private Member.
There is no question of the right hon. Gentleman going naked into the usual channels. He has a past in this connection. He wrote a brilliant introduction to Walter Bagehot's "English Constitution" that underlined some of the difficulties that face him now as Leader of the House. He wrote in page 46:
But the fact remains that in the period when effective power in all spheres of life—economic, social and political—is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Parliamentary control of the Executive has been quite steadily decreasing without being replaced by other methods of democratic control.
I believe that to be an accurate picture. I believe it is the duty of a Select Committee to report on ways to make Parliament a more lively place for debate.
To me there is always a worry that the House of Lords is taking the more

urgent debates and we are following in their wake, often two, three, even four weeks later. Because I believe that all of us in this House, of whatever party, want to make this a great forum of public debate, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) said in winding up his speech, I hope the Lord President will reconsider his attitude to these Motions and see that we get an alteration of Standing Order No. 9.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Crossman: I first accept the implicit rebuke by the House about the complexity of this debate. It set me an objective and a problem. The problem is due to the fertility of the Select Committee in pouring out Reports at the speed it has done.
This point was made by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) when he said that we are discussing Report No. 1, but of course we are discussing it for the second time since we implemented the main recommendations some months ago, some of which he does not like. We are receiving more information, and more ideas are coming from the Select Committee, than have come at any time during my life in this House and there is the difficulty of how to handle all this.
I accept the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). I shall certainly consider next time when we have, as we may have, a massive Report from the Committee at the end of the Session, whether we should have two half days debate, one on taking note of the Report and one on the specific recommendations. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for putting that forward. This time it has come this way and we have eight Motions. It is most important to clarify our minds on these Motions before the moment comes about which I do not want confusion.
There is no Motion on the subject of morning sittings. I made clear in my first speech that while I could make interim comments on how they are going—which I did—the better way would be to wait before coming to a judgment on them. I want to see the major recommendations of the Committee about the procedure on Public Bills. So there is no recommendation on morning sittings.
On the recommendation about short speeches I have listened to the debate very carefully and I am very much aware that this is an important issue. It is important to our procedure and to our attitudes. I draw one conclusion, that the Select Committee's proposal for a rigid limitation of 30 minutes for Front Bench speeches and 15 minutes for back bench speeches seems overwhelmingly opposed by the House as a mandatory proposal, but I do not deny that my attempt to find a compromise has certainly received a great deal of opposition. I am perfectly prepared to allow the House to decide. If the House feels that that should be withdrawn I will leave it to the House, and, if that is objected to, that is that. I do not say that this Motion has to go through because this is a question for the discretion of the House. I agree that I was asking the Chair to take a heavy responsibility which the Committee limited, but that question I leave with the House, recognising that there is deep opposition to it and the House should decide.
That leaves another matter I wish to mention, Motion No. 2 which is a small issue about Divisions. Although no prior objection was made, I have received it since through the usual channels and certain practical difficulties have been mentioned. The authorities of the House have brought to my attention a fact which the Committee did not bring to my attention, the problem about the presence of the Clerks. I withdraw this Motion and it will not be dealt with this evening.
I come to Motion No. 8, Standing Orders, which is the other one which the right hon. Member for Thrisk and Malton asked me about. This is the Motion which the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral and the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton together support, that we should take out from the report on topical debates one item—the item on S.O.9—and disregard the rest of the Report and insert that here. I have not a long time in which to speak. I will merely say that I gave a very careful reasoning as to why I asked the House not to take this course this evening.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton prayed in aid my hon. Friend

the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and said that I should accept his advice. I want to take my hon. Friend's advice on this matter, for on this matter, if the right hon. Gentleman remembers, my hon. Friend advised that, in his view—and he is hardly a tame Conservative—this had better be seen in its proper context and viewed together with all the other proposals towards the end of the Session.
My hon. Friend said that he would be happy to see this Motion withdrawn, as I have no doubt that the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral will now consider the possibility of its being withdrawn, on the clear understanding that towards the end of the Session, when we have the report, as we shall have, on the procedure for Public Bills, I will put forward the practical suggestions for implementing not only this part of the Report but the other proposals of the Report which are all left out by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself. We want to get a balanced picture and see this all together. I am grateful to my hon. Friend from below the Gangway for once again persuading the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton to see the reasonableness of this point of view.

Mr. Turton: The advice the Lord President of the Council received was that he should use this for trading purposes. I hope that it will be beneath his contempt to do that.

Mr. Crossman: That is not the part of the advice which I remember or have accepted. I can be selective in my approval of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. I thought that the most helpful part of his speech was that to which I have referred.
I want briefly to answer a whole number of points which have been raised in what I can describe as an unusually interesting debate in which a great deal of material has been presented. First, I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral about the danger of the multiplicity of Committees. It is unrealistic to go on creating Committees and sub-committees with nobody attending them. There has been a tremendous array of Chairmen. Speeches have been made by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the Chairman of the Estimates Committee, the Chairman of the Select Committe on Procedure, and the Chairman of the Select


Committee on Science and Technology, not to mention speeches by a whole host of distinguished members of Specialist Committees. They have all said, not only that we should not have a multiplicity of Committees, but that it is no good having a multiplicity of Committees if there is not adequate men to deal with them.
I need not speak long on this aspect, any more than the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton did. There has been absolute unanimity in all quarters on two points. First, on no account must the independence of the Clerks be undermined by dilution from Whitehall. Secondly, on no account must their quality be undermined by a career structure which means that they cannot afford to stay Clerks but must go elsewhere. I think that those were the two essential points which have been made. They were made, too, by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers).
I accept this point and I give the assurance that certainly we shall discuss this question in the Services Committee at the next opportunity, which I hope will be on Tuesday, because we must, as has been rightly said, in the next two months get this career structure right if we are to recruit sufficient Clerks and get the establishment on a sufficient level even to carry out the work they now have to do, let alone any additional work.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Aylesbury approved of my suggestion for a steering committee composed of the Chairmen of these Committees to view the problem of overlapping and the two other new problems of travel abroad and research workers. I want again to emphasise, especially to those hon. Members who have not been present for the whole of the debate, the enormous importance in our work of the Clerks' being a college of their own and not being muddled up with the Civil Service. Their essential job is to help in being an independent critique of the Civil Service, and it is no disrespect to the Civil Service to say that these are different jobs which need different specialisations and a different tradition.
The next theme to which I wish to refer in winding-up was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). He asked me—and he asked the Select Committee, too—to con-

sider as one possible reform that we might break the practice of dividing Parliaments into Sessions and have one tremendous single slab of Parliament. Speaking as someone interested in production, I doubt that that would really suit us. I think that there is something to be said for dividing our work into sections and completing each section in turn.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, gave part of the answer when he said that he thought there was something in the notion that all legislation should not lapse at the end of each Session and that we might have non-controversial legislation, Second Reading Committee legislation—what my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale would call consensus legislation—permitted to continue its placid path while contentious legislation fell by the way in our traditional style. I suggest that the Select Committee should look at this idea of different treatment for non-contentious and contentious legislation in relation to Sessional divisions.

Sir Douglas Glover: rose—

Mr. Crossman: I have very little time, and I must get on.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) made a very interesting speech and, answering my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West, said that he felt that what new Members thought lacking in the House was not so much participation in legislation but that, if they were to be whole-time here, they wanted facilities for doing a decent job. I agree. What the hon. Gentleman said was not strictly relevant to our narrow business on procedure, but I very much agree that it is relevant to the life of this place. Well do I know that those who are equipped with all the advantages and facilities of Ministerial life sometimes take it for granted that others have them, too. They do not.
This is a serious problem for the House, but I should add that, in considering it, we must be perfectly clear what the job is for which the facilities should be available. Here we have a striking division, as we do so often in our debates


on procedure. There are those who genuinely seek, as I do, one of the rôles of the House, in consensus politics, as an assembly of bipartisan inquirers and controllers of the Executive. I believe that to be, not the most important, but an essential function of Parliament, which will probably grow in importance with the growth of central power in this country. This bipartisan control requires a lot of trained and expert staff if we are to do it at all. This was the plea of all the chairmen of Committees who have spoken today.
But there is the other theme, which came from my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, my right hon. Friends the Members for Clackmannon, East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and for Leeds, West, and also from my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), who strongly reinforced it. They all made the same plea and offered a simple solution. Take all the boring stuff off the Floor of the House, all the Orders in Council, all the petty stuff, and have great debates on more great issues.
To that, I reply that sometimes the great debate arises from a small issue. If Parliament throws away all control of Orders in Council and all control of Committee and Report stages, we may thrown away some of the essentials in the defence of freedom which we all require. The matter is not as simple as that. I agree with those who say that we could solve the problem without morning sittings if we put all matters of that kind elsewhere, shoving them off into Committess or even to the House of Lords. There are places to which we could deliver them.
But we must retain in this House control of the details. The difficulty is to retain the control without being swamped by details. I believe that the Select Committee is fully apprised of this. From what I have seen of its work, I am confident that, irrespective of party, it understands the problem and that, when it is looking at Public Bill procedure and Statutory Instruments, it will do so always from the point of view that we must retain control in Parliament and yet we must devolve some of the detail to Committees if we can. This is the great issue which the Select Committee will be considering in its big report.
I make this observation to my hon. Friends below the Gangway. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale who said that he wanted to follow Disraeli's example, believing in always keeping a distinction and difference between the parties. Of course, when Disraeli said that consensus was the main fact of the House of Commons, he was saying at that time, "Against the natural consensus I must create a real difference in the parties." There is not the same position now. To achieve the correct balance between consensus and controversy, it is the essence that we need both greatly to strengthen the committee work and control of the Executive through the Specialist Committees. I have no doubt that that needs to be done to revive the authority of Parliament.
I was disappointed that the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton doubted my sincerity in attempting to do that, for I have probably achieved more than any other Leader of the House in getting this done. Having got it done, it is essential to get the debate that matters on the Floor of the House, to get topical debates and see that when we debate important legislation the greatest issues are debated on the Floor and the minor issues upstairs.
Those are the things we need to do. Every time we debate the subject we move forward on that line, and I believe that we shall get that correct balance in the next two or three years, if we are moving at the pace we are.
I have just time to mention one other thing. I think that the hon Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) specially asked me about the fortnight period. My short answer is that we are not often worried by it and it would require legislation. But if he will see me behind the Chair afterwards I shall give him a longer and more considered answer. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) asked me about the public galleries and seemed to doubt what I said. I have the report from the Sergeant at Arms, which says:
Almost every day the entire public queue has been admitted. The average waiting time has sometimes been as long as 20 minutes but it has very often been less.
I think that he was quite right to add:
It is most unlikely that the situation will remain as satisfactory as this during the peak


tourist time in the summer. It will not be possible to open the Strangers Gallery unless the number of staff is increased.
That is why I was urging an increase of staff. An immediate increase is required to deal with this matter.
To sum up, I ask the House to accept the following Motions:
No. 3, Finance Bills; No. 4, Notices of Motions (Private Members); No. 6, Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration; and No. 7, Science and Technology; and to permit me to withdraw Motion No. 2, Divisions:
That, during the present Session, the following paragraphs shall have effect in place of paragraphs (1) and (2) of Standing Order No. 34 (Divisions):

(1) If the opinion of Mr. Speaker or the Chairman as to the decision of a question is challenged he shall direct that the lobby be cleared; and he shall announce the names of tellers as soon as all those names have been submitted to him.
(2) After the lapse of two minutes from this direction he shall put the question again.
I leave open Motion No. 5, Members' Speeches:

That, during the present Session, Mr. Speaker shall have power, if he think fit, to determine the period of time during which any Member may address the House during any portion of any sitting, and to direct any Member who may have exceeded that time to discontinue his speech:

Provided that he may allow a Member to speak for a further period equal to the time during which his speech has been interrupted by any other Member.

and ask the sponsors to withdraw Motion No. 8, Standing Orders.

Sir Knox Cunningham: rose—

Sir D. Glover: I am disappointed—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 101.

Division No. 369.]
AYES
[9.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Gregory, Arnold


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, w.)
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Allen, Scholefield
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Anderson, Donald
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelry)


Archer, Peter
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Ashley, Jack
Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Hamling, William


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Harper, Joseph


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Delargy, Hugh
Haseldine, Norman


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dempsey, James
Hattersley, Roy


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dewar, Donald
Hazell, Bert


Baxter, William
Diamond, Rt. Hn, John
Heffer, Eric S.


Beaney, Alan
Dickens, James
Hooley, Frank


Bence, Cyril
Dobson, Ray
Hooson, Emlyn


Bessell, Peter
Dolg, Peter
Horner, John


Binns, John
Dunnett, jack
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bishop, E. S.
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Blackburn, F.
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Eadie, Alex
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Boardman, H.
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hoy, James


Booth, Albert
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)



Ellis, John
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Boyden, James
English, Michael
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Ensor, David
Hughes. Roy (Newport)


Bradley, Tom
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hunter, Adam


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Hynd, John


Brooks, Edwin
Faulds, Andrew
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fernyhough, E.
Janner, Sir Barnett


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Finch, Harold
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Buchan, Norman
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Foley, Maurice
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Cant, R. B.
Ford, Ben
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Forrester, John
Judd, Frank


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fowler, Gerry
Kelley, Richard


Coleman, Donald
Freeson, Reglnald
Kenyon, Clifford


Concannon, J. D.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Garrett, W, E.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Cronin, John
Ginsburg, David
Lawson, George


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Gourlay, Harry
Leadbitter, Ted


Cullen, Mrs, Alice
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lee, John (Reading)


Dalyell, Tam
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lestor, Miss Joan




Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Oram, Albert E.
Skeffington, Arthur


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Orbach, Maurice
Small, William


Lipton, Marcus
Orme, Stanley
Snow, Julian


Lomas, Kenneth
Oswald, Thomas
Spriggs, Leslie


Loughlin, Charles
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Luard, Evan
Padley, Walter
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Lubbock, Eric
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Stonehouse, John


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Paget, R. T.
Swingier, Stephen


McBride, Neil
Palmer, Arthur
Symonds, J. B.


MacColl, James
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Thornton, Ernest


MacDermot, Niall
Park, Trevor
Tinn, James


McGuire, Michael
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Urwin, T. W.


Mackintosh, John P.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Varley, Eric G.


Maclennan, Robert
Pentland, Norman
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Wallace, George


McNamara, J. Kevin
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Watkins, David (Consett)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Price, William (Rugby)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Probert, Arthur
Wellbeloved, James


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Whitaker, Ben


Manuel, Archie
Rankin, John
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mapp, Charles
Rees, Merlyn
Whitlock, William


Mason, Roy
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wilkins, W. A.


Mayhew, Christopher
Richard, Ivor
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Mellish, Robert
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mendelson, J. J.
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Mikardo, Ian
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Millan, Bruce
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Rose, Paul
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Moyle, Roland
Sheldon, Robert
Woof, Robert


Murray, Albert
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Yates, Victor


Neal, Harold
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)



Newens, Stan
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Mr. Howie and


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Phillp (Derby, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Mr. Walter Harrison.


O'Malley, Brian
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)





NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gower, Raymond
Onslow, Cranley


Baker, W. H. K.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Grieve, Percy
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Biffen, John
Gurden, Harold
Pearon, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Peyton, John


Blaker, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pink, R. Bonner


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pounder, Rafton


Braine, Bernard
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Heseltine, Michael
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Higgins, Terence L.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hiley, Joseph
Ridsdale, Julian


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hill, J. E. B.
Royle, Anthony


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Russell, Sir Ronald


Campbell, Gordon
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Sharples, Richard


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holland, Philip
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Clegg, Walter
Hornby, Richard
Sinclair, Sir George


Corlield, F. V.
Hunt, John
Smith, John


Costain, A. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Stodart, Anthony


Crawley, Aldan
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Crouch, David
Jopling, Michael
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Currie, G. B. H.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dalkeith, Earl Of
Kirk, Peter
Temple. John M.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Tilney, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
MacArthur, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Webster, David


Eden, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mawby, Ray
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Errington, Sir Eric
MaxweM-Hyslop, R. J.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fisher, Nigel
Miscampbell, Norman
Wylie, N. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Younger, Hn. George


Foster, Sir John
Monro, Hector



Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Sir Douglas Glover and


Goodhart, Philip
Nott, John
Sir Knox Cunningham.

Question put accordingly and agreed to.


Resolved,


That this House takes note of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Reports from the Select Committee on Procedure.

FINANCE BILLS

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, during the remainder of the Session, where, in respect of a Bill for imposing, renewing, varying or repealing any charge upon the people, either—

(a) Mr. Speaker has been informed that no general agreement to allot a specified number of days or portions of days to the consideration of the Bill in Committee or on report has been reached, or
(b) any general agreement of which Mr. Speaker has been informed is, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, working ineffectively,
a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown that the Business Committee shall make recommendations to the House as to the number of days or portions of days to be allotted to the consideration of the Bill in Committee, on report or on third reading, and as to the time by which proceedings on any parts into which they may divide the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion in Committee or on report and any further recommendations which may in their opinion be necessary to ensure the bringing to a conclusion of the proceedings on the parts of the Bill allotted to those days or portions of days; and the question on such a motion shall be put not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon:

That for the purposes of this Order the Business Committee shall consist of the Chairmen's Panel together with not more than five other Members to be nominated by Mr. Speaker:

That, when the Business Committee shall have reported the resolution or resolutions containing their recommendations to the House, the provisions of sub-paragraph (c) of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) shall apply to the proceedings on any Motions for the consideration of such report and on the consideration of the said report.—[Mr. Crossman.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Motion deferred till Tomorrow.

NOTICES OF MOTIONS (PRIVATE MEMBERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, during the present Session, notice of a subject to be raised on any motion for which a ballot is held in pursuance of paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 5 (Precedence of government business) shall, notwithstanding the practice of the House, be given at the Table

or in the Table Office not less than nine days before the day on which the notice of motion is to have precedence:

Provided that no such notice shall be given on a day on which the House does not sit.—[Mr. Croswnan.]

Hon Members: Object.

Motion deferred till Tomorrow.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION

Select Committee appointed to examine the reports laid before this House by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and matters in connection therewith:

Power to send for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time.—[Mr. Crossman.]

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Select Committee on Science and Technology to have power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee:

Every such Sub-Committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, to report to the Committee from time to time, and to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order.

Three to be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee.

Power to report from time to time the Minutes of the Evidence taken before such Sub-Committees and reported by them to the Committee.

During the present Session the Committee to have power to appoint persons with technical or scientific knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.—[Mr. Crossman.]

STANDING ORDERS

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, as a new Standing Order:—

Urgent debates.

(1) No motion for the adjournment of the House shall be made until all the questions asked at the commencement of public business on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday have been disposed of, and no such motion shall be made unless by a Minister of the Crown before the orders of the day or notices of motions have been entered upon, unless a Member rising in his place shall propose to move the adjournment for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; if Mr. Speaker is satisfied that the matter is proper to be so discussed, the Member may either obtain the leave of the House, or if such leave be refused, the assent of not less than forty Members who shall thereupon rise in their places to support the motion, or, if fewer than forty Members and not less than ten shall thereupon rise in their places, the House shall, on a division upon question put forthwith, determine whether such motion shall be made.

(2) If leave is given or the motion is so supported or the House so determines that it shall be made, the motion shall stand over until the commencement of public business on the following day (or, on Thursdays, until the commencement of public business on the following Monday) when proceedings upon it shall be interrupted after three hours, or, if Mr. Speaker directs that the urgency of the matter so requires, until seven of the clock on the same day.

(3) A Member intending to propose to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of this order shall give notice to Mr. Speaker by twelve of the clock, if the urgency of the matter is known at that hour; if the

urgency is not so known he shall give notice as soon thereafter as is practicable; if Mr. Speaker so desires he may defer giving his decision upon whether the matter is proper to be discussed until a named hour, when he may interrupt the proceedings of the House for the purpose.

(4) In determining whether a matter is proper to be discussed Mr. Speaker shall have regard to the extent to which it concerns the administrative responsibilities of Ministers of the Crown or could come within the scope of Ministerial action; in determining whether a matter is urgent Mr. Speaker shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House in time by other means.

(5) Mr. Speaker shall state whether or not he is satisfied that the matter is proper to be discussed without giving the reasons for his decision to the House.

(6) Debate on motions made under this Order may include reference to any matter that would be in order on a motion to take note of the subject under discussion, and a motion may be made under this order notwithstanding the fact that a motion for the adjournment is already before the House or is proposed to be made.

(7) Any proceeding which has been postponed at seven of the clock under this order shall not, save as is provided in paragraph (2), of Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business), be interrupted at ten of the clock and may be resumed and proceeded with at or after that hour for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon a motion under this order.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

That Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) be repealed.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Motion deferred till Tomorrow.

PRICES AND INCOMES (TRANSPORT DRIVERS)

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Temporary Restrictions on Pay Increases (20th July 1966 Levels) (No. 6) Order 1967 (S.I., 1967, No. 515), dated 39th March 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th March, be annulled.
This Prayer is yet another in the series which we have laid against the Government's prices and incomes policy. Like the others which have gone before, it is an Order made under Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act. It seeks to enforce the Government's policy by statutory control and, like the other Orders, it involves the element of compulsion and intimidation to which we on this side and hon. Members in all parts of the House are rigorously opposed.
It is clear that, despite counter-attractions earlier in the evening, these Orders are attracting more and more attention. It is also clear that, if the Government proceed to introduce a new Act reinforcing Part II of the Prices and Incomes Act, we shall see a constant succession of Orders similar to this which again will require very close Parliamentary scrutiny.
This is the eleventh wages Order which the House has considered, and it covers a somewhat larger group of people than those which have been covered by previous Orders. It affects in all some 450 drivers who are employed by 17 car delivery firms. Some 250 to 300 of those drivers are concerned with driving transporters which carry motor vehicles from the factory to the distribution network. In addition, there are some 200 or so plate drivers who actually deliver new cars.
Before I come to outline the history of this case, perhaps I should stress that it would be quite wrong for hon. Gentlemen opposite to suggest that there is anything hypocritical about the attitude of my right hon. and hon. Friends either to the Government's prices and incomes policy or their attitude to the trade union movement.
Mr. Speaker, classical scholars like yourself may have heard hypocrisy described as Government by horses. I do not think that that is so, but, be it so or not, we are against both hypocrisy and against Government by horses, trade union or otherwise.
The position which we take is quite clear. We are against the Order because it involves the element of compulsion, because it is grossly unfair, and because the policy as a whole is likely to prove unworkable.
While the Government seek to give the impression of being tough with the unions, we believe that that is illusory and that what is really needed is something more fundamental by way of trade union law reform, and that we have set out in our Manifesto—

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: I can well understand the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) starting off with a defensive statement about hypocrisy, but he ought to go further and remind the House that the kind of reforms which his Party suggested would have destroyed the freedom of the trade union movement very effectively.

Mr. Higgins: We could not disagree more—[Interruption.] We could not—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. A Parliamentary intervention by one hon. Gentleman to another is all right. Mere noise however is no contribution.

Mr. Higgins: I was saying that we could not disagree more with the hon. Gentleman. We feel that the real threat to the trade union movement and to the basis of industrial relations is the kind of action being taken under this Order.

Mr. Robert Maxwell: Humbug.

Mr. Higgins: The framework which we suggest would ensure that the trade union movement was kept up to date, and that would be in the interests of all sections of the community and both sides of industrial relations.
I turn to the 450 members of the Transport and General Workers Union against whom this Order is made. In many ways, they are led by the former


right hon. Member for Nuneaton, Mr. Frank Cousins. It has become clear from the Orders which we have been considering that the attitude of the Government has been very much to select those unions which are most militant, in the hope, possibly, of intimidating others who may take a similar line. As such, the Transport and General Workers Union is in much the same position as Admiral Byng. They are an ideal target for the Government to attack pour encourager les autres. This, I think, is very much the attitude which the Government have been taking on this Order.
If we turn to the details of this case, we find that it is somewhat more complicated than those of the earlier cases which we have considered, but, like them, it raises important points of principle which I shall discuss as soon as I have had an opportunity of outlining the case.
I understand that the earnings of the transport drivers whom we are considering average between £18 and £22 a week for a 60-hour week, with an 11-hour day, calculated on estimated journey time. In many cases the journey may take less than that, but the payment is on that basis. The pay is calculated on this basic rate. In the case of Birmingham transporter drivers taking a six-car load, this would be about £17 16s. for the guaranteed week, whether they work or not. The "platers," on the other hand, the deliverers of individual cars, are paid a somewhat lower rate, and may get only £12 to £13 a week basic.
I think that the case which we have to consider really involves four wage claims, because this sets the framework in which the claims which are covered by this Order are made. Until 1963 there were a variety of bonus payments for the drivers. These included payment for the carriage of return loads. If, for example, a driver delivered cars to London, he might take a return load of imported cars, and in return for this he received a series of "plus payments." In 1963 these were integrated in return for a substantial pay increase, but in 1965 the union again asked for plus payments, and after a strike it was agreed to accept a further increase. Those are the two agreements which set the framework of the agreement now covered by this Order.
On 19th May, 1966, a fresh agreement was made of 3d. extra per hour for the transport drivers and for platers, a cut in hours from 42 to 41 for transporters, and the establishment of a 42-hour week for those who had been covered by the previous platers' agreement. In January, 1967 the firms concerned—there were 17 in all—withheld the increase because it appeared to be in conflict with the Government's prices and incomes policy and not unnaturally the chairman of the employers of the group of companies covered by this Order wrote to the Minister of Labour asking for advice. He was told that the amount should not be paid. Notice here a distinction to which I shall return; the Minister said it should not be paid, rather than it must not be paid.
At that point the union began to exert pressure on one firm, and said that its members would not carry return goods. This put the firm in a difficult position, because its competitors were not being affected in the same way. As a result it was forced to give way, and it was therefore in conflict with what the Government said should not be done.
After this a further claim was made in addition to the claim which was made in May 1966, which should have been paid in January 1967. This was an additional claim made in February, 1967, which the workers put forward for an extra 3d. an hour. As a result of this and the May, 1966, claim the First Secretary made the Order which we are now considering. This forbids the firms to pay more than was being paid for similar work before 20th July last year, so that effectively the Order covers both the agreement made in May of last year and the subsequent one made in February of this year.
Representations against the Order were made both by the T. & G.W.U. and by individual firms, but the Order was confirmed, and as one can see it came into operation on 31st March. As a result of this the union announced that the agreement which it had made last year, and which was due to come into force at the beginning of this year, was at an end. The union maintained that it was a productivity agreement, and therefore it was not necessary for its members to carry return loads if the rest of the agreement, namely an increase in


the amount paid, had been stopped by the Government. This, too, raises a point of principle to which I shall turn.
In addition to refusing to carry return loads, the union also acted on the suggestion that people returning from London should not use their season tickets, but should be paid the full single fare, thereby obtaining a certain amount of extra remuneration which they would not otherwise obtain—because very often they return by getting lifts, or by going hack in groups. After this, the chairman of the employers' group asked the Minister what action he proposed to take, and, in particular, whether he proposed to implement that part of the Prices and Incomes Act which I well recall our debating in Standing Committee, namely, that part which said that if any union brought pressure on the employers who were subject to an Order to get them to break the Government's policy, the union itself would be subject to severe penalties. This provision is to be found in Section 16(4) which says:
If any trade union or other person takes, or threatens to take, any action, and in particular any action by way of taking part, or persuading others to take part, in a strike, with a view to compel, induce or influence any employer to implement an award or settlement in respect of employment … when the implementation of that award is forbidden under the foregoing section of … this Act, he shall be liable … to a fine"—
of £100, or, if it goes to a higher court, of £500.
That sets the general background. I apologise to the House for spelling it out in some detail, but, as with similar Orders, it is important that we should be quite clear about the factual basis. No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary, whom I am glad to see here to reply again this evening, will correct me if I have made any statements which are not true statements of the position and no doubt he will add to them if he feels that additions are relevant.
The whole framework of this discussion raises a number of very important questions. The first which needs to be established is whether the agreement covered by the Order is a productivity agreement. When we were in Committee on the Prices and Incomes Act, we discussed at great length the distinction between a productivity agreement which was genuine and one which was a pseudo-

productivity agreement designed merely to get round the Government's prices and incomes policy. At that time, the Government were not prepared to accept that any productivity agreement was justification for a wage increase. But since then their attitude seems to have changed somewhat, although we are not absolutely clear what they mean by a productivity agreement.
There is a distinction between the attitude of the employers and that of the union. The union is clearly asserting that this is a productivity agreement. If the payment due under the agreement is not made, then the union would not expect to make return journeys or to use season tickets and so on. In contrast with this, the employers assert that this was not a productivity agreement, but simply a straight agreement reached last May for a pay increase in January of this year, and, moreover, that similar productivity agreements were negotiated in 1963.
In other words, what the employers are asserting is that effectively the rule book has been "bought" twice. They argue that they bought the rule book as far as return journeys were concerned back in 1963. In effect, they say, the union is now arguing that the employers must buy back the same set of restrictive agreements a second time, that is to say, the refusal to carry return loads or use season tickets and so on.
I hope that we shall have a clear statement from the Parliamentary Secretary saying, first, whether he regards this as a productivity agreement, and, secondly, whether he thinks that it is a phoney productivity agreement, that the employers are being asked to settle up a second time and that, therefore, the Order in this case does not affect a productivity agreement. There has been considerable correspondence about this.
The second major question is whether the union is taking industrial action within the meaning of the Section which I quoted. Does the Parliamentary Secretary feel that the union is trying to induce or influence or compel the employers to break the prices and incomes policy, or that the unions' refusal to work return loads or use season tickets constitutes such action? I understand that there have been a number of go-slows also as a result of the Government's freeze, which


were covered in the Press about 2nd April this year. Does he feel that that go-slow constitutes industrial action within the meaning of the Section? If so, it is relevant to ask what action the Government propose.
It would not be legitimate for him to say that we are now urging the Government to do what everyone in Committee agreed would be bad—taking Government action against a union and taking it to court. The essential point is that the Government's policy must be regarded as a whole. It is no good their saying, "We do not want to take action against the unions", and at the same time that they are prepared to take action like that in the Order.
Once the Government undertake such an absurd policy as this, it is essential that they should face the consequences and behave equitably to employers and employees alike. We have a right to ask what the position is when some of the workers covered by an Order may be sacked and then re-engaged on a different basis. This was a theoretical question which we discussed in Committee which has now come into practice.
Some of the employers covered by the Order have said that they intend to dismiss some of their workers who work on the Birmingham scale—who are covered by the Order and to whom they cannot, therefore, give additional payments—and they propose to re-employ them as Coventry workers on a different scale. This will give the drivers concerned a higher remuneration than if the Government's freeze policy were fully implemented. This development has not happened over any previous Order. The police draughtsmen case was similar, but this development is new.
If these employers do take this action, what do the Government propose? What is the purpose of a wage freeze Order like this, if, instead of keeping prices and costs down, it raises them? The extraordinary situation is that, by the Government's imposition of the Order, industrial relations have considerably deteriorated in these firms. Moreover, both the "platers" and transporters are refusing to take return loads and use their season tickets.
Second, instead of being frozen by the Order, the overall cost structure has

been raised. This is absurd, because it defeats the Government's purpose. Is it sensible for the Government to ask us to approve Orders like this if the blatant effect is not to lower industrial costs but to raise them and, therefore, to raise the price to the consumer?
An interesting point on costs side has come up in the course of the exchanges between the two sides of the industry. It is alleged that normally the firms include in their prices an amount which covers the full second-class fare. If this is so, I trust that the Minister will examine the charges involved, particularly when firms normally employ a delivered price system which many people would regard as a restrictive trade practice. I ask this question in deference to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), because we must consider both parts of the problem and not attempt to take sides. One must be concerned with the exact balance that exists in industrial relations and the fact that the Government's action is having precisely the reverse effect it was intended to have. Indeed, there has been a considerable deterioration in industrial relations in this industry.
My hon. Friends and I have consistently maintained when discussing Orders of this type that the Government's policy is not fair. This seems to be particularly so in this case because I understand that similar firms which are doing exactly the same job are not covered by the Order. The workers in those firms will, therefore, get an increase whereas those covered by the Order will not.
What I have said proves that, even in the small, as against the whole, the Government's policy is unfair. It is also unfair in the whole because it tends to differentiate between organised labour and those in occupations which are not represented by organised trade unions. Many workers in the latter group tend to escape the effects of the freeze.

Mr. William Price: The hon. Gentleman appears to have uncovered a virtue in these Orders which I did not know existed. He has argued that the Government are picking on militant and organised labour. Would not he agree that that is a virtue compared with the record of the Opposition which, when in Government, always picked on the weakest?

Mr. Higgins: I have made it clear that we are opposed to the policy lock, stock and barrel. We would not differentiate in the way in which the Government are differentiating. The trouble is that the Government are picking on the strong unions as well as some of the others and are intimidating them while those who are not represented by unions are often completely escaping the freeze. It therefore cannot be said that the Government's policy is either equitable or fair. For this reason I hope that my hon. Friends will join me in voting against the Government tonight.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is in his place on the Front Bench tonight and will, once more, be replying to a debate on this subject. The only other Government official on that Bench is a representative of the Whips' Office who comes from Yorkshire. The Parliamentary Secretary must again attempt to defend the indefensible. I wish that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor were in his place to reply, because the Parliamentary Secretary has very little to do with either the policy or the Order. Nor has my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.
We are going through these unreasonable debates because of certain actions which the Chancellor thought it fit to take to prove internationally that he was adopting a tough attitude towards wage increases. That is the real basis of the debate. I shall endeavour to say nothing which might in any way reflect on the part the Parliamentary Secretary has played in this business. He did not make the policy, although he must defend the indefensible on behalf of somebody else.
The history of the Order is mportant and, without going back too far, I wish to establish one point which will commend itself to the House. The union involved, having gone through a difficult history in this part of industry, had, as a result of a report submitted by Mr. Scamp in December, 1965, withdrawn a higher wage claim and re-submitted a very modest one.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is fully cognisant of these facts. If he does not mind my saying so, from discussions that took

place between him, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the people involved in the application of the Order and trade union representatives, I got the impression that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend did not know of many of these facts until very recently and had to be brought up to date by those on the trade union side. If this is so it indicates why this policy is so difficult of application and needs so much improvisation that it makes the job of government in these matters well nigh impossible, or at least extremely difficult. I am glad to see that I have my hon. Friend's agreement on that point.
The more reasonable claim was submitted. I regard it as a virtue on the part of the trade union people that they took due notice of the Scamp Report because if there is to be rationalisation of industrial relations notice must be taken of such reports whether or not all their conclusions are agreed. The negotiations started, but I want to put on record that this has not been a business that started a few hours before 20th July, 1966. This negotiation has a very long history, and the resubmission of the claim on a more modest basis does not mean that the earlier expectations had been wiped out. We know how frustrating it can be in industrial relations when, after there has been a period of delay, for one reason there is another period of delay for another reason.
The car delivery service went into a period of difficulty arising out of the unreasonable policy of an agency that represented employers, and of a number of the employers themselves in their handling of redundancy policy. That led to a strike which lasted three months and created a good deal of difficulty in this part of the industry. After the strike had been settled, the resubmitted more modest claim was negotiated and an agreement was reached.
The second point I wish to establish, because it is of practical importance, is that the agreement contained a genuine productivity element. All the discussions that have gone on for such a long time in this House, and in the country between the General Council of the T.U.C. and the Government, have always fastened on the factor of a genuine productivity agreement. I remember my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister coining the phrase


about a copper-bottomed productivity agreement—he is fond of these metallic phrases and used one for this discussion. I submit that in this case we had a steel-bottomed productivity agreement. Coming, as I do, from a steel constituency, I could not put it more strongly than that.
It was an agreement to speed things up by delivering at both ends. I will not go into too much detail, because the details are well known to those who have gone through this business. That saved time, and the employers are on record as saying that it saved money for the firms involved. We have the elements of a productivity agreement that is precious to the men in this part of the industry, precious to the employers from their own point of view, and equally important from the point of view of the nation because it means saving time, saving effort and doing the job more efficiently and effectively. It is this agreement which the Government has set aside. I have always thought that when the industrial historian writes the history of this particular period on behalf of my right hon. Friends and the part which the Minister of Labour had to play in unmaking agreements freely agreed between the two sides of industry, the productivity element will be written down as something beyond comprehension.
The particular group agency has broken up and there are individual arrangements between the firms and the men involved. One very important firm has given notice to a number of men and is now re-employing them and paying them at the higher rate. The return journey is taking place, and in this part of the work the productivity agreement is being implemented to everyone's delight. There is an important firm owned by the nationalised part of the industry, Furnaces Limited, which has vigorously protested to the Government because it is inhibited from being able to honour the agreement, and this puts the firm at a serious disadvantage compared with other firms.
Every day new anomalies are added to this incomprehensible situation. Every day new difficulties of the Government's own making appear. Purely on the basis of sound industrial and economic sense, having said that I do not hold my hon.

Friend responsible for the policy, I put it to him that the time has come for the Minister of Labour—the head of his Department—to bang the table and call a halt. He is in the Cabinet charged with the particular responsibility of watching over industrial relations. Here is an Order which does harm to good industrial relations, in addition to all the other difficulties I have described. Instead of merely going on criticising and making spurious demands for the Order to be withdrawn—which my hon. Friend has no authority to do tonight—I ask, has not the time come for the Minister of Labour to use his policy to call a halt?
There are involved in this Order a number of men who, when they were told that the productivity agreement could not operate and that they would not be paid the agreed higher rate, took no industrial action and did nothing which could be regarded as in the slightest way illegal. All they did was to say to their employers, "If you are not honouring that part of the agreement which results in a return journey, we are not making the return journey". While that is strictly legal, how can a Government sensibly assume responsibility for a situation which compels a group of working people who had agreed through their negotiating machinery to do the job in an efficient way to say that they will not do it because they will not be paid for it?
I say this more in sorrow than in anger. Sometime soon the day will come when we shall do away with all these nonsensical Orders. There are more people in the Government now who do not care to admit publicly that this policy does not make sense. I do not want to add more to what I said at the beginning about the attitude of the Opposition, but it is passing strange how the Opposition has used this situation in recent election events.

Mr. Speaker: Whether in sorrow or in anger, the hon. Member must keep to the Order and talk about the Order.

Mr. Mendelson: I agree that I must always keep in order, but as the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) was given a certain amount of limited free rein to make a few general remarks, I thought it churlish not to make any response.

Mr. Speaker: I thought I had given the hon. Member a similar opportunity.

Mr. Mendelson: All right. In that case, as I am always guided by your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I say more in sorrow than in anger that, whatever attitude others adopt, the final decision will be between the trade union movement and supporters of Her Majesty's Government and our Government. If the Government persist in going on with Orders of this kind, they will create an atmosphere among those directly involved—in this case reasonable men who have acted very reasonably—and among others which will make the whole idea of an incomes policy something absurd, baroque and ridiculous. That will be a high price to pay for persisting with Orders of this kind. I ask the Government to think again.

Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I put this to him? Will not he say this much, that the Government are encouraged to proceed in their policies by the number of those of their supporters on the back benches who speak against these Orders but who do not vote against them?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a general debate on prices and incomes policy or on the attitude of members of Her Majesty's Government. We are discussing an Order.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: I would agree with much that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) said, though he will appreciate that I would not endorse his peroration; but, as I understood that that was in some difficulty of running without order, I think that he will in any case be anxious that I do not seek to follow him in that.
I want to confine my remarks to the Schedule, "Description of remuneration for work", to the Order. It contains three words which have special significance and which the House should dwell upon in seeking to use this occasion to get some clarification of Government policy. The words are "remuneration", "work" and "employees".
The first point about remuneration is that these car delivery drivers were paid

in cash. Their increase was in cash. This is a matter of some significance, because it is wrong to assume that remuneration is entirely in cash for many employees. We know that often it is not. There are other forms of benefits. However, those other forms of benefits do not attract the same rigorous attention of the Ministry of Labour as do increases in cash.
I am encouraged to think that this is so by an article which appeared in the Financial Times a little while ago entitled
Stresses and strains of the salary freeze
and written by a person called Elspeth Ganguin, who said this:
I heard of instances where staff has been discharged and been re-engaged at higher salaries. 'It now remains to be seen how the fringe benefit side can be worked out', my informant added. I have also been told of cases where managers are agreeing amongst themselves to swop employees—'like on the football market'. And the London Chamber of Commerce, as it cannot give rises, is supplying its staff with luncheon vouchers instead.
Only a few days ago on the "Today" programme broadcast by the B.B.C. mention was made of the case of an engineering company in the North-West of England, which was giving trading stamps, some sort of bonus—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will come to the Order about which we are talking, I hope.

Mr. Biffen: Yes, indeed. My point is simply this. In these instances, where the payments were in some less tangible form than cash, no action was taken. The misdemeanour of the transport delivery men whose remuneration we are discussing was primarily that this was a cash transaction. This is not just a theoretical point. When one considers the movement of salaries, particularly executive salaries, the remuneration not in terms of cash is of considerable significance. That is the first observation I make on the arbitrariness of the Order.
My second point relates to the word "work". My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) asked several questions about whether the work which the car delivery men do could be described as proceeding from a genuine productivity agreement, and the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) elaborated that argument with great force.
What was the procedure adopted on this Order? The proposal to increase incomes, or to increase remuneration, if we are to use the phraseology of the Order, was notified to the Ministry of Labour by the employers. Some of us may have the impression that at the Ministry of Labour there is a team of highly skilled people able to open the post each morning, examine these notifications, and come to a Solomon-like judgment, considering that in those instances at least one need not refer them to Mr. Aubrey Jones.
The reality is very different. On 17th April, I inquired of the Minister of Labour how many proposals for increasing the remuneration of employees had been received, and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary replied:
In the last five months the Ministry of Labour has received well over 8,000 inquiries about the interpretation of the Government's incomes policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 17th April, 1967; Vol. 745, c. 15.]
That number in five months is 1,600 a month, 400 a week, or 80 a day.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss the Government's prices and incomes policy in other fields but in relation only to the circumstances bound up with the Order which the hon. Gentleman knows we are discussing.

Mr. Biffen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The House is entitled to know how this case was picked out. I have established that there are, on average, 80 a day coming in. They are the 80 about which the Government knows something, and there are legion about which they know nothing. For example, there was the case of the Morgan Crucible Company, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir John Vaughan-Morgan) would be only too glad to inform the House. It would be interesting to know by what criterion or judgment someone sitting at the Ministry of Labour was able to say that this increase, out of the 80 notifications, had to be stopped.
I doubt that it lies in the ability of anyone to ascertain with precision what a productivity deal is. People much more closely connected with industry than we ourselves are most reluctant to make judgments of that kind. It was certainly the view of the general secre-

tary of the Transport and General Workers' Union that there had been some kind of productivity deal, because, on 3rd April, he was quoted in the Financial Times as having said:
I am not going to have members of my organisation confidence-tricked into doing something and then not getting paid".
We should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether he repudiates the implications clearly contained in those remarks of Mr. Frank Cousins or whether Mr. Cousins was right in saying that there had been a productivity deal of some kind but it was not, in the opinion of the Ministry of Labour, copper-bottomed enough.
My third point concerns the word "employees". I asked a Question of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary a little while ago—its relevance was emphasised by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price)—about how many employees whose pay we discuss under these Orders are members of trade unions. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary could not give me the answer; he said it was not possible. But I ask him now on this Order whether we can be told how many of the employees covered by it are thought to be members of a trade union. If he cannot give us this information, it seems to me an extraordinary deficiency on the part of the statistical services that ought to be available to his Ministry and to the House.
This is one more of a series of Orders that we are asked to pass, and it seems to me that anyone who has hoped for the emergence from these debates of any kind of principles governing the Government's prices and incomes policy must be sorely disappointed. There is only one words to describe the Orders—capricious. What the House is invited willingly to endorse as capricious it will ultimately be asked to endorse as tyrannous.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Following what the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) has said, that this is a continuing series of Orders that have come before the House since the implementation of Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act, it appears that a group of people whom we know very well regularly meet at this hour about twice a week to debate these Orders. One


wonders just how long it will go on and what relevance it has to the economy of the country and the prices and incomes policy.
In my opinion, we have some very bad Orders before the House, and also some pretty grim ones. This is one of the worst Orders that we have had. It is significant that it has arisen out of industrial action—it is one of the few Orders that have done so—taken by members of the Transport and General Workers Union. The action was taken against the L.G.D.A., an association covering a great many of these drivers, though by no means all of them. The association has a bad industrial relations record. In fact, the Transport and General Workers Union has had to fight exceedingly hard to maintain organisation and get that employers' organisation to see sense.
Following the dispute that took place—as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) said, it lasted for many weeks—an agreement was finally arrived at. Looking at the record of the firm, looking at the problems that the dispute created inside the car industry and looking at the problems that Mr. Scamp has to face in regard to industrial relations inside the car industry, it appears to some of my hon. Friends and myself absolutely idiotic that the Ministry of Labour should pick out this firm and agreement for an Order. We can logically ask, as has already been done, how do the Government arrive at these Orders? What yardstick do they use for choosing a particular firm or group of workers as against another? It would appear from the Order that we are moving from some of the smaller unions to the larger ones. There is likely to be an Order concerning a dispute in Scotland, and we might discuss it at a later date. That will have more serious undertones than ever.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee), who is the Duchy of Lancaster, has some responsibility for this sort of Order. He took part in negotiations with the firm, and knew something of the conditions relating to the agreement. The Government were fully aware of the serious situation in the cat industry.
What worries me is that the Ministry of Labour, which it would appear is

responsible for answering for the Orders—we are familiar with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary who appears here regularly to deal with them—[Interruption.]—I say to hon. Members opposite that this is not a laughing matter. I can hear that some of them do not take these matters seriously. We do. So do some hon. Members opposite, but not all.
The Ministry of Labour should be getting on with the job of industrial relations and bringing about the type of atmosphere needed in industry. It seems to be working against that by being responsible for introducing Orders such as this and having them implemented. That does not make sense to the workers, and it does not help get a sensible economic policy and sensible prices and incomes policy. That is the key issue as we see it.

Mr. F. A. Burden: The hon. Gentleman referred to hon. Members on these benches. I remind him that hon. Members on this side of the House vote against the Orders. Members opposite speak against the Orders but support them.

Mr. Orme: Facetious remarks like that do not carry any weight with us.
The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), has introduced debates on some of the Orders lucidly on a number of occasions. I felt that his mask slipped a little tonight when he began, and we shall take note of the points he raised.
On the Order and the way it was arrived at concerning this payment, I ask my hon. Friend, "What about the thousands of tax-free travel allowances now being paid by industry?" Many thousands of £s are paid by all types of employers, as he is aware, particularly in office and similar work. Those agreements are being made not only to get round the Prices and Incomes Act but also in relation to tax payments.

Mr. John Peyton: On a point of order. Could the hon. Gentleman indicate where and how the Order covers tax-free travel allowances for anybody?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Unless the hon. Member is relating it to the Order, it is out of order. I thought that he was trying to develop


a point and so I did not intervene. But he must come to the Order.

Mr. Orme: The point had already been made, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I felt that it was germane. I appreciate the difficulty in trying to raise relevant issues on a narrowly-drawn Order like this, and, of course, we do not always get much help from hon. Members opposite, However, we will do our best.
We have had ten Orders on wages and one on prices. We were told that when we got past the turn of the year we would start to see an end to this sort of thing, with Part IV of the Act lapsing in July. We were told that we would be getting—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is really now getting into a wider debate than is admissible. He must stick to the situation leading to the Order and the Order itself.

Mr. Orme: This Order has been made in relation to a productivity agreement arising out of industrial conditions and negotiations and genuinely arrived at. This union could have taken very strong militant action to enforce the agreement and is still free to do so if it wishes. Such action would then be an open challenge to Government policy. It is time the Government recognised that this and other such Orders are irrelevant to the basic situation we are faced with and I urge them even at this late hour to withdraw the Order.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I do not suppose that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) will entirely welcome my support or even be grateful for it, but I think that his words about Government interference in the details of industrial relations were justified and I congratulate him. I want to welcome also the words he used about this Order. He said that we have had bad, very bad and some grim Orders, and that this is one of the worst. Again I see no reason to quarrel with that description.
I do not always find myself in warm agreement with the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), but tonight he said that it was the job of his poor hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to

defend the indefensible on behalf of someone else. I agree with that as a succinct summary of the situation. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary is here like a sacrificial lamb to do the duty of someone else. A simple minded person, looking at this Order and seeing on it the name "Michael Stewart, First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs," might be astonished to find that the First Secretary of State is not here to defend his own rather scruffy handiwork.
I wonder whether the judgment of my right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench is correct in more or less limiting these debates, which are on one of the most important subjects facing the country, to this late hour at night. Why do we not have a Supply Day to discuss this sort of Order at an appropriate hour when more hon. Members can speak and take an interest?
I am obliged to remind the hon. Member for Salford, West that as yet the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) is only Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and not the Duchy of Lancaster. No doubt that will come.
I have two main complaints against the Order—it is unfair and it is stupid. It is unfair in the sense that some firms involved are not included in the Order. This gives them a quite uncovenanted and unearned advantage. Anyone who is not covered by the Order is given a splendid opportunity to take the workers and the business of those who are. To me, this is a first-class example of the invidious situation into which one inevitably gets once individual firms are named in the course of legislative proceedings.
I come to my second point of attack, namely that the Order is plainly stupid. It produces, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) made very clear, inefficiency. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) touched on this, too. What was meant by all those policies, those splendid speeches which we had from Socialist spokesmen saying that we were to share in a time of efficiency, of dynamism and of cutting out wastefulness? Here we have an Order which is directly responsible for raising the costs of the industry and for producing wasteful and unnecessary investment.
I am deeply sorry for the Parliamentary Secretary who has somehow to defend the lunatic lucubrations of the Department of Economic Affairs. I feel that it is time that the poor Ministry of Labour were let off some of these tasks. I therefore ask him these questions with some sympathy towards him and anger not against him but against those who are responsible for this policy. My hon. Friend very rightly posed some of these questions. I want to know whether my hon. Friend's questions, which touched on points of law, should not receive the attention of a Law Officer of the Crown. We have no Law Officer here. These questions are important, and they are by no means easy to answer. I am far from wishing to belittle the abilities of the Parliamentary Secretary, who has shown considerable ability, but I do not see why he should allow himself to be dragged into this legal morass. It would be a death wish to invite, the Solicitor-General here, and I would not go that far, but I think that the presence of the Attorney-General might be helpful in order that we might be told how far we have got into this mess and how deeply.
I understand that one of the firms named in the Schedule to the Order has been engaged in the simple process of sacking its Birmingham workers and then re-engaging them on terms which raises them to the earnings of the Coventry workers. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a direct question: how does that firm, in doing that, fit into its duty under the Order? The Parliamentary Secretary must answer that question.
A second question which has been asked by my hon. Friends is, was there or was there not a productivity agreement? If there were such an agreement, then all this intervention has been a waste of time. I am driven to the conclusion that in the Government's view, contrary to that held by hon. Members opposite, there was no productive agreement. In that case, what are the Government doing to protect their own policy from those who are attacking it and who are coercing firms who attempt to follow it?
These are straightforward questions, but the answers, as a result of the situation into which the Government have got themselves, are complicated and difficult

—and I doubt whether they are applicable. I am profoundly sorry for the hon. Member that he should have to defend the detailed meanderings and elusive consequences of a policy initiated by others dedicated to the pactice of adumbrating on high but never walking the ground of ordinary men.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. John Ellis: I shall speak very briefly tonight. I must congratulate the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for remaining within order throughout the whole of his speech. He has been the only contributor to do so, and I shall speak briefly, if only because I do not understand the policy behind this Order. I hope for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, and no doubt I shall receive it later on. When one does not understand the policy behind the Order, it is difficult to understand the Order and get anything right.
This industry, and I am a member of the T.G.W.U., has a shocking labour relations record in this area. So much so that the Government asked Mr. Jack Scamp to act as a trouble-shooter and mediator, to look into the problem of the industry. He turned his attention to this particular section because, as with many other matters in the motor industry, it had a record of disturbance.
In concert with my union and the firms concerned, he was able to arrive at an agreement acceptable to all. It is rather strange, having reached this agreement, that the whole thing should be overturned as a result of Government action. The other thing that I find difficult to understand is that any economic policy must give increased productivity, so that there shall be more wealth available to the workers. This is an industry where we can demonstrate, without a shadow of doubt, that there would have been increased productivity.
The basis of the agreement was that the men would make return trips with loads. This is a salient point, and was part of the policy which I would have thought the Government would have been happy to see. We now have a situation which is ridiculous. Without using strong language, it typifies some of the effects of the policy that the Government are pursuing.
We now have the position in which the men will not be paid, and so they will not return with the loads. They will lose the benefit of the agreement, as will the firm. So the firm, the men and the country lose. This demonstrates that the policy resulting in this Order is seen in many ways to be lacking something. I understand from my union that the situation, to which the union refers as a bit ridiculous—I think it is a lot ridiculous—is that at least six more firms in the Midlands have not had an Order made against them and are continuing to operate extra payments and at the same time taking work from the other companies. I would like confirmation of this. Is it true? How do we justify this? The companies concerned are bound to carry out this Order, and the men, logically and rightly, have said that this was an agreement, and if they cannot have the payment they will not operate it. The situation will arise in which one firm is more economical than the other. I do not know whether my hon. Friend knows about these other firms. One firm will wax fat at the expense of the others.
This has not been a very happy occasion for me. I did not come here to speak against the Government in this way, and I thank right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite for not chyaking me. I hope that my hon. Friend will go back and tell his masters about the kind of debates that we have here late at night. I believe that we will then be in a much happier position to face the real opposition, which is on the benches opposite—and I say this without offence—rather than on these benches.

10.56 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): Out of courtesy I must begin by thanking those felicitous right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who have expressed their concern and sympathy for my task this evening. An invariable feature of these debates—and I have now replied to nine of them—is that during the debate I am offered a lot of sympathy, and an equally invariable feature is that it seems to be dissipated the moment I rise to reply.
Another invariable feature is that the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins),

who moved the Prayer on behalf of the Opposition, begins with a lucid and totally accurate statement of the position, but on this occasion he was less than accurate, and made some factual mistakes. Knowing his record, and the other speeches which he has made, I am sure the House will regard that as, above all, an indication of the complications and complexities of this Order.
Because of that, it is necessary for me to go in some detail through the facts as they are understood by the Government and to correct some of the mistakes which the hon. Gentleman made. But before I do that I must deal with the point which the hon. Gentleman and others made about proposed action against the parties to this agreement, or any other agreement made in defiance of an Order under the Act.
I hope the House understands that when hon. Members ask what the Government's attitude is, and whether it is the Government's intention to prosecute, whether it is the Government's intention to pursue the men through the courts, it is totally impossible for the Government to take any attitude at all because the Act is quite specific on this matter. Talking about penalties and about action, Sections 22 and 16 of the Act make it quite clear that the decision to prosecute is taken by the Attorney-General in his judicial capacity. It is not a matter for the Government, but for him as a Law Officer. I have dealt with that at the beginning because I want the House to understand that that is all I can or should say about the possibility of prosecution, and anything that I go on to say about this Order must be understood in the light of that paramount important legal fact.
I think that we can best understand the Order if we begin our consideration from the time when the agreement was signed in May, 1966. This agreement offered the men three sorts of increase: an increase of 3d. an hour on the basic rate, a reduction of the working week from 42½ to 41 hours, and overtime rates which were improved from time-and-a-third to time-and-a-half. It was to be operative from 1st January 1967.
A third of that agreement came into force immediately, the reduction of working hours, which was covered by a decision of a wages council. This


meant that before the prices and incomes policy was announced in the House in its present form on 20th July, 1966, the working hours had been reduced to 41 as a result of the decision of the wages council. So there were, at that time, only two items outstanding, the 3d. an hour on the basic rates, and an increase in the overtime rate from time-and-a-third to time-and-a-half. The decision was that it should be implemented on 1st January, 1967.
Clearly, by the standards of the Government's prices and incomes policy, that was an existing commitment which, according to the two White Papers, should have its implementation deferred for six months. Plainly, the Government were right, when asked for advice by the employers, to say that, according to Government policy, that increase must be postponed until six months after the operative date.
Therefore, we are left with the two questions which have been posed time and time again this evening: whether the Order should be described as unnecessary or might be described as improper because, even within the standards of the Government's prices and incomes policy, and particularly paragraph 27 of the severe restraint White Paper, a productivity agreement existed which might justify the increase.
Before dealing with that, however, let us make certain—and this was the most important error made by the hon. Member for Worthing—that certainly no increase was justified, that certainly no increase was entitled under the other criterion which sometimes allows a breach in the standstill in the period of severe restraint.
By no standards are these men lowest-paid workers. The hon. Member for Worthing quoted figures which were quite wrong. He gave not the men's earnings, but their fall-back rates. A transporter driver, a man carrying a number of vehicles on a transporter, is guaranteed a weekly wage of £l6 10s. but his actual earnings rate is more than twice that amount. A man who ferries individual cars is guaranteed a weekly wage of £12 11s. 6d. but earns rather more than 50 per cent. above that minimum figure. Therefore, by any standards, these are comparatively well-paid men. They are certainly not men who would

be allowed to breach the incomes policy because of the lowest-paid worker criterion.
The House will remember from Monday that the Government have continued to extend the payments which are made as a result of the lowest-paid criterion. If these men were in that category, the Government would be happy to allow the payment to go forward, but clearly they are not.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Can my hon. Friend give the number of hours involved in the average working week for the figures of earnings which he has given?

Mr. Hattersley: Certainly. The average working week approaches 60 hours on the maximum level. [Interruption.]

Mr. Orme: Then are they not lower-paid workers?

Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend must understand that no criterion that I, the Government or anybody else have laid down has ever suggested that a man who gets £16 10s., irrespective of the number of hours he works—for that is a fallback rate for transport drivers—is a lowest-paid worker. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and others are inclined to take a great deal of notice of what is said by the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union. His view is that the lowest-paid worker is somebody earning fl5 a week or less. These transporter drivers are always earning £16 10s.

Mr. Charles Mapp: In view of the figure of hours given by my hon. Friend, am I not right in thinking that the Ministry is conniving at illegal hours for road vehicle drivers?

Mr. Hattersley: No, the Ministry is not. While the men may be technically at work for 60 hours, they are not driving for 60 hours. If they were, the position might be different. In that 60 hours they are available for work, waiting for loading and doing many other things as well. They are certainly not driving for the whole of that time.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman has said that not by any standards could these men be considered as lowest-paid workers. That may or may not be true.


Can he, however, tell the House by what, if any, standards we judge whether people are lower-paid workers? If there are any standards by which we are expected to judge lower-paid workers, will the hon. Gentleman circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Hattersley: Three Orders ago—it seems much longer—I rehearsed for the House the many criteria which have been suggested as appropriate for judging who are lowest-paid workers. There is the Cousins criterion of £15, the Lord Cooper criterion of £14, the criteria that appeared in The Times, which turned out to be £10, the criterion laid down by the Prices and Incomes Board for agricultural workers and others, and so on. By not one of those do these men qualify. Were I to circulate each of those individuals and bodies there would, I assure the House, be no question of these men qualifying by the standards which those individuals and bodies have laid down.
The House knows only too well that the real argument tonight is not about whether these men qualify for an increase because they are among the lowest-paid workers, but whether they should qualify despite the incomes policy because of a productivity agreement. We must, therefore, examine this question in some detail.
I emphasise, as I did in my opening remarks, that understanding and describing the conditions that exist in this industry is a most difficult task. This industry has had notoriously bitter industrial relations in the last two years. As a result of that, it has a history of unrest, suspicion and mistrust. Because of that, and because of the strangely fierce competition that exists between one firm and another, it is an industry in which it is particularly difficult to obtain accurate and consistent facts.
When I discussed, with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the parties to this agreement, the simple facts of the matter, as we then tried to understand them, it was almost impossible to get management and men even to agree on the facts of the case. There were constant disputes and misunderstandings.

Mr. Mendelson: Would not it have been better, in view of the difficulties, for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my hon. Friend to have invited the representatives of the unions concerned to meet the two Ministers before, rather than after, the announcement was made in the Gazette?

Mr. Hattersley: The unions concerned met and talked to officers of my Ministry long before the initial announcement was made in the Gazette. They had a series of meetings and were invited to put their case. Up to the time of the announcement in the Gazette, no case had been made under the prices and incomes criteria. They merely said that they believed that the agreement should go on because it had been freely negotiated. They took the line of the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen)—not trying to justify it in our terms but in his. Certainly they had many opportunities to explain to us the sort of productivity points which some hon. Members have tried to explain to the House tonight, but that opportunity was never taken.
Hon. Members will also understand that a complication arises if one is trying to decide if there has been a change in practices when the negotiating machinery of the industry undergoes a total and fundamental change in the way in which the negotiating machinery in this industry changed on 25th October, 1966. Until that time the men in the Birmingham group, the Longbridge group of companies, negotiated as a corporate entity with the union. Agreement was arrived at. It was binding on the union and on the Longbridge group as a whole.
But on 25th October, for reasons which need not concern us tonight, the Transport and General Workers' Union refused to continue any negotiations with the Longbridge group of companies as a group and began, on that day and thereafter, to make a series of individual agreements with individual companies, none of which are documented and all of which make changes in working practices difficult to compare with the agreements of May and April of 1963 and 1966. Although one agreement, that with the Longbridge group, appears on paper and can be checked, all the other agreements with individual companies are dependent on individual memory and word of mouth. All these things make the job


of deciding whether or not there is a genuine productivity agreement fantastically difficult. The remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and of some of my hon. Friends. demonstrate cleary the difficulties of the Government in taking a positive role and taking positive steps in industrial relations.

Mr. Reginald Eyre: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is damaging to the Ministry of Labour—whose chief function is to bring about industrial reconciliation—to be involved in Orders of this kind? If they are made by the Department of Economic Affairs, should not the Minister responsible for that Department be here to try to defend what is an indefensible position?

Mr. Hattersley: I am grateful that hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to extend their charity to my speech in reply to the debate. The relationship of my right hon. Friend to this Order is, in many ways, enviable. After all, he is the Minister designated in the Order and the one entitled to vary it or allow some payments to go forward, as I pointed out last Monday. My rôle in explaining and defending the Order this evening is a role that I am happy to occupy.
Let us turn to the productivity element in the agreement as it has been described this; evening. There are, in fact, potentially two productivity elements. The first concerns men who are described as "platers", the men who drive individual cars and who claim that the productivity element which is now being injected into the agreement which their union has with individual firms is the abandonment of using single rail tickets and the practice of using season tickets. The second supposed productivity element relates to those involved in using transporters. not for single journeys, loaded, from Birmingham to wherever Birmingham-produced cars are to go, but bringing back cars as well—reloading and returning full rather than empty.
I must make it clear that it is the contention of many employers that if, in fact, there was at some point an agreement to bring back transporters loaded from their original destination, a payment was made for that in the agreement of April. 1963. I re-emphasise that I can

say no more than that is the contention of the industry.
The hon. Gentleman will understand the difficulties of evaluating that contention when I say that because of the particularly fluid nature of many of the firms in the industry, because of the way they overlap and are suddenly created and suddenly go into liquidation, many of the firms cannot give an accurate answer even as to the date when they began to use transporters. What is certainly the case is that some firms insist that they were using transporters before April, 1963, and that the unions were given a payment for it at that time.

Mr. Mendelson: Why is my hon. Friend basing the decision behind this Order entirely on the views of some of the companies, when the trade union involved has a completely different view of the matter? Why accept this one-sided point of view?

Mr. Hattersley: Not for the first time my hon. Friend is over-eager. I go on to describe the contentions of the union which were given to my right hon. Friend and to me at the same time. The contentions of the union are that whatever the plusage payments, which are described in the agreement of 1963, were for, they were not for reloading and carrying vehicles back to Birmingham and the Midlands. The union insists that this was an element introduced into the agreement after May, 1966. They insist that some firms could not possibly have signed an agreement in 1963 making plusage payments for reloading because they did not at that time own transporters which made reloading and double carrying a feasible proposition.
Those are the two contentions on which the Government are required, first of all, to make a decision, whether they are right or wrong. On the evidence presented to me, I believe that certainly for some firms reloading is a new practice. I believe that for some firms reloading is not a new practice. But I believe that whether it is a new practice or not is not strictly relevant to the issue that we are discussing. Even if reloading was a new practice injected into the agreement on or after May, 1966, by the criterion of productivity agreements as we understand it, and as the National Board for Prices and Incomes has laid down the


criterion, the reloading agreement has not been presented to us as a genuine productivity bargain. It may be—and I almost make this appeal to the unions—that there is still time and that the unions will still take the opportunity of making that submission and describing that case; but it has not yet been done.
Before turning to that, let us at least dispose of the issue of season tickets—

Mr. Higgins: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I say this. He will realise that if the Government take the view that it is not a productivity agreement, the arrangements which the unions are introducing must constitute persuasion, or influence, or compulsion within the terms of the Section that I quoted. We appreciate the point that he has made about the Law Officers considering the matter, but there ought to be some time limit on them. Has he discussed that with his hon. Friends and when will they give a ruling?

Mr. Hattersley: I know that the hon. Gentleman was listening carefully to me, so he will remember that I did not say that in the Government's opinion it was not a productivity agreement, but that the evidence to convince us that it was had not yet been presented to us—[Interruption.] I went further, and said that we were still open to conviction on the matter. I went further still, and described something as almost an appeal to the union to make its position known, and to describe why they called this a genuine productivity agreement.
What I want to make quite clear is that whether or not the transporter agreement is one, by our standards the arrangement does not conform, on the evidence presented to us now, to a genuine productivity bargain. Let us all agree before we deal with anything else that by no means can the present arrangement with season tickets be described as a productivity agreement. No matter what the arrangement is about travelling, and whether the men travel on individual tickets or on season tickets, it has nothing to do with productivity. It requires no more effort nor does it give more production. The only productivity element on which we are open to conviction is in regard to the transporter side.
Before the Government are persuaded, one party or the other must convince us, on very precise criteria, very rigid rules—the seven conditions that have been laid down by the Prices and Incomes Board as a real test—that a genuine productivity agreement has been brought about. One of the conditions is that the community as well, and not just the two parties—not just the union and the employers—should benefit. The country, too, must benefit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) accused my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of somehow denying—I think the words were—"benefit to the nation". I hope he will tell us, and I will gladly give way to him while he does so, what the benefit to the nation was. As I understand it, the agreement that men should return with a loaded rather than with an empty vehicle gave no benefit to the nation at all. The price of car transporting was not coming down. The price to the consumer was not being reduced—

Mr. Mendelson: I would remind my hon. Friend that my point was—and I did not even mention the First Secretary—that the union maintains that with a great many of the firms involved the return journey with six cars is a new element, and therefore represents a genuine productivity agreement. Why does my hon. Friend use certain technical positions now to justify the decision of his Department or of the First Secretary not accepting this point of view?

Mr. Hattersley: I must repeat what I have said. I have conceded to my hon. Friend that there may well be some individual firms for whom the return loading is a new arrangement, but I have not conceded that anyone has made out that the new arrangement is a productivity agreement. The question I have asked my hon. Friend remains unanswered: what is the benefit to the nation that he describes as coming out of this agreement? [HON. MEMBERS: "More efficiency."] More efficiency which up to now nobody has suggested would be reflected in the form of reduced prices—

Mr. Burden: It must be in the interests of productivity generally and benefit the nation as a whole if a vehicle that would otherwise return empty from where it came loaded takes, instead, a return load


to that same spot. That must be productivity.

Mr. Hattersley: I am sure the hon. Member has read Report 23 of the Prices and Incomes Board. He will recall from the final chapter that the Board urges the Government to accept seven criteria of productivity. I repeat that that is the position on which the Government stand. If the hon. Member can persuade either party to produce evidence, which they have not yet tried to do, that this agreement conforms with those standards, the Government will think again.
I turn to two consistent points made when these Orders are prayed against. The first is that the Government are being arbitrary, capricious or even sinister in their choice of adversaries and that the Orders are not comprehensive, that somehow someone slips through the net. I repeat that the Government make Orders against unions or groups of men or firms which choose to break the prices and incomes policy. When someone asks, "Who are the Government picking on, why are they picking on the weak?"—as we used to be told—or "the militant"—as we are told this evening, I reply that the Government are picking on people who choose to break the line on prices and incomes policy.
When the hon. Member for Oswestry asks, "What about the 80 cases a day; why are you not making Orders against them?" I reply that we are not making Orders against them because the result of the inquiries to my Ministry is that they choose voluntarily to abide by the rules of the prices and incomes policy. Of course this is preferable and no Order is made necessary in nine cases out of ten, but in the one case it is made necessary because we must cover all appropriate categories in the industry.
I turn to the accusation that some firms which ought to have been included in the Order have not been included. We continue to hear allegations about malpractices and that some people are defying the policy and getting away with it. The hon. Member for Oswestry mentioned the case of Morgan Crucible, which is almost as hoary a chestnut as Acrow, which is conforming to the policy. He went on to say that somehow the fact that the word "remuneration" appears in the Order suggests that

the Government are allowing some through. One can always imagine what point the hon. Member will make on a Wednesday evening because he asks a Question on the subject on a Monday afternoon. In the part of the world I come from we call this "telegraphing your passes". He having warned me by a Question on Monday, let me assure him that the Orders cover remuneration in all forms. If he has evidence of forms which have not actually put up wages but which have sought to give more remuneration by back door methods by increasing payments or allowances, it is his duty to tell my Ministry in order that the line of the prices and incomes policy may be held.
Let me look at the accusation that individual and specific firms in Birmingham should be within this Order but are not and that one firm by re-employing under the Coventry agreement got round the provisions of the Act. There is no truth in that. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) said in a previous debate that any owner of a transport fleet could discharge his men and re-employ them on another agreement and by that means flout Govment policy. I assure the House that could not possibly be the case. The nature of a Section 29 Order is so comprehensive that that in itself would be defying and avoiding the intention of the Act and would be a breach just as much as paying an increase.
If the men were subject to the Long-bridge agreement and paid an increase it would be a breach which a Section 29 Order would not countenance. The Coventry agreement is no more remunerative to the men than the Longbridge agreement. I have seen a theoretical model in which an imaginary man travels a hypothetical 100 miles and because he works in Coventry he gets more than if he works in Birmingham. But this industry is not made up of theoretical men or hypothetical journeys. Our information is that, over any one year, good times with bad—this is the view of the union and of the employers—the Coventry agreement pays no more than the Birmingham agreement. Changing from one to the other, although it may have caused gladness in the hearts of hon. Members opposite, in no way defies the Order or breaches the intention.
Next, we are told that there are firms excluded from the Order which should not be, that there may be firms paying more but whose names do not appear in the Schedule. We have had three accusations or suggestions. The first we have investigated, and we have discovered that the firm is not paying an enhanced rate. The second firm says that it is not paying an enhanced rate, and it is to provide evidence to support that contention during the latter part of this week. The third is a wholly owned subsidiary or, at least, a wholly associated firm of one of those which appear in the list. It was the belief of the management that, by notifying us of its principal interest, it had somehow covered as much as it was required to do, the interest of its smaller firms as well as of the larger.
It has always been the Government's intention and policy to limit Orders as precisely as possible to those firms which were breaking the rules rather than apply them more widely or haphazardly, including and antagonising men and firms which were really applying the policy voluntarily.
The Government's prices and incomes policy is essentially a voluntary policy. It is essentially a policy which has worked because most workers in this country have chosen to apply it voluntarily. The reason why wage movements have been of an unparalleled small size over the last nine months is that the policy has been accepted voluntarily.
I repeat, as I have done on nine occasions now and, no doubt, will do on many more during the next six months, that the importance of making Orders against those minorities who choose to

flout the policy is to demonstrate to the vast majority who accept it voluntarily that there is justice not only for the militant, not only for those who are determined to go to the head of the queue irrespective of their merits, but for the militant and the voluntarily accepting alike.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Harold Gurden: There is no time now to make the speech that I wanted to make, but I must emphasise that the charge which is made against the Government and the Minister, which has not been denied, is that their action has caused chaos in the industry. The industry is still in chaos, and the hon. Gentleman has not told us what reply he has given to the letter which the employers wrote on 5th April asking "Where do we go from here? What are we to do?". All the Government have done is to cause chaos and reduce productivity, and now we are left in the air, as the industry itself is left in the air.
The companies do not know how to get the job done. Mr. Alan Law, the representative of the Transport and General Workers' Union in Birmingham, is delighted that, once again, he has an opportunity to put the industry into difficulty. His object, successfully achieved on several occasions, has been to stop the motor industry, and this is what he is prepared to do again. The Minister ought to tell the industry now what the next step is.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 195.

Division No. 310.]
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Eden, Sir John


Astor, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Errington, Sir Eric


Baker, W. H. K.
Burden, F. A.
Fisher, Nigel


Batsford, Brian
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Foster, Sir John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Clegg, Walter
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Bessell, Peter
Corfield, F. V.
Gibson-Watt, David


Biffen, John
Costain, A. P.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Crawley, Aidan
Glover, Sir Douglas


Black, Sir Cyril
Crouch, David
Gower, Raymond


Blaker, Peter
Currie, G. B. H.
Grant, Anthony


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grieve, Percy


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Braine, Bernard
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Gurden, Harold


Brewis, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Drayson, G. B.
Harrison, col. Sir Harwood (Eye)




Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Sharples, Richard


Harvie Anderson, Miss
McMaster, Stanley
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Heseltine, Michael
Maude, Angus
Sinclair, Sir George


Higgins, Terence L.
Mawby, Ray
Smith, John


Hiley, Joseph
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hill, J. E. B.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Hirst, Geofrey
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
More, Jasper
Temple, John M.


Holland, Philip
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret



Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Hornby, Richard
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Tilney, John


Hunt, John
Nott, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Osborn, John (Hallam)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pardoe, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Walters, Dennis


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Peel, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Jopling, Michael
Peyton, John
Webster, David


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pink, R. Bonner
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pounder, Rafton
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kershaw, Anthony
Pym, Francis
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn, James
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kirk, Peter
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wylie, N. R.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridsdale, Julian
Younger, Hn. George


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)



Lloyld, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Royle, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lubbock, Eric
Russell, Sir Ronald
Mr Reginald Eyre and


MacArthur, Ian
Scott, Nicholas
Mr Hector Monro.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Anderson, Donald
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Archer, Peter
English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth


Armstrong, Ernest
Ennals, David
Loughlin, Charles


Ashley, Jack
Ensor, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacColl, James


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
MacDermot, Niall


Barnes, Michael
Faulds, Andrew
McGuire, Michael


Baxter, William
Fernyhough, E.
Mackintosh, John P.


Beaney, Alan
Finch, Harold
Maclennan, Robert


Bence, Cyril
Foley, Maurice
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Ford, Ben
MacPherson, Malcolm


Binns, John
Forrester, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, s.)


Bishop, E. S.
Fowler, Gerry
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Blackburn, F.
Freeson, Reginald
Manuel, Archie


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mapp, Charles


Boardman, H.
Garrett, W. E.
Marquand, David


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Ginsburg, David
Maxwell, Robert


Boyden, James
Gourlay, Harry
Mayhew, Christopher


Braddock, Mrs. E. M,
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mellish, Robert


Bradley, Tom
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Millan, Bruce


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Gregory, Arnold
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Brooks, Edwin
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moyle, Roland


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Harper, Joseph
Murray, Albert


Cant, R. B.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Neal, Harold


Coe, Denis
Haseldine, Norman
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Coleman, Donald
Hattersley, Roy
Noel-Baker Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Hazell, Bert
Norwood, Christopher


Conlan, Bernard
Hooley, Frank
O'Malley, Brian


Cronin, John
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oram, Albert E.


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Oswald, Thomas


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Dalyell, Tam
Howie, W.
Padley, Walter




Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hoy, James
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hynd, John
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Delargy, Hugh
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dempsey, James
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Probert, Arthur


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rees, Merlyn


Dobson, Ray
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Doig, Peter
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda West)
Richard, Ivor


Dunnett, Jack
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kelley, Richard
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Kenyon, Clifford
Rose, Paul


Eadie, Alex
Lawson, George
Ross, Rt. Hn. William







Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Thornton, Ernest
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Tinn, James
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Sheldon, Robert
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Varley, Eric G.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wallace, George
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Watkins, David (Consett)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Skeffington, Arthur
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Small, William
Wellbeloved, James
Woof, Robert


Snow, Julian
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Yates, Victor


Spriggs, Leslie
White, Mrs. Eirene



Stonehouse, John
Whitlock, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Swingler, Stephen
Wilkins, W. A.
Mr Alan Fitch and


Taverne, Dick
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr Neil McBride.

SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY (SCOTLAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

11.40 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: The Cupar factory of the British Sugar Corporation serves not only Scotland but also the North of England, particularly the County of Northumberland, and has a capacity to slice beet from about 15,000 to 16,000 acres. During the period from 1956 until 1963, an average of about 15,000 acres was treated in the factory but in 1964 the acreage that was sliced went down to 10,500; in 1965 to 8,750; in 1966 to 7,000 and in the present season, of which the sowing season is just about coming to an end, we shall be fortunate if 7,000 acres of sugar beet are sown in the factory's area. This means that rather less than half the potential capacity of the factory will be occupied.
All the sugar beet growers in Scotland are glad that the Corporation has announced its intention to accept contracts for this year and at least another two years but, of course, my interest, as Member for the constituency in which the factory is situated, is not only in beet growing—and I am a contractor to the factory—but also in the effect on employment in the area.
This factory employs permanently about 200 people, of which the majority are males. During the beet season, from October until about the New Year, approximately an extra 180 are employed and this is of no small interest to the area because, in East Fife, we have a considerable seasonal trade in the summer months, when people are employed in the tourist industry, and they have somewhere else to go to when the holiday season ends.
Nearly every year, a refining campaign is run by the Corporation, as is being done now, and another 90 people are employed in the factory as a result. I am sure that it is well known, therefore, that if this factory were to close down the amount of money which would need to be expended to replace it would be very considerable.
In addition, there is a good deal of indirect employment in connection with the factory. The fact that many hundreds of tons of beet are driven in by lorries from rural areas at a time when the grain harvesting is finished and before the main drive in seed production has come up is of great importance to rural transport interests and, in addition, of course, agricultural engineers are employed in servicing beet harvesters and so on, also at a time when they might otherwise not be so profitably employed. This spread of employment is important to the wellbeing of a rural community.
Whilst I stress that there would be a real problem of employment in the Cupar area were this factory to close, I am certain that, in the long run, it is essential to take steps to see that it is put on a viable basis and to have the acreage filled up every year. The loss of acreage really began in 1963 with the disastrous sugar beet season, when the yield went down to under 9 tons to the acre and, of course, as a result, in 1964, there was a loss of 4,000 acres and the contracted acreage went down to little over 10,000.
The average yield per acre in the three years 1964 to 1966 was about 11½ tons. This is worth probably to the growers at present prices about £74 to the acre. At the same time, the United Kingdom yield was running at about 13½ ions to the acre. In this last session, according to a report in the Sugar Beet Magazine. United Kingdom output was about 15


tons to the acre against our average in Scotland over the last three years of 11 tons.
But it would not be fair to paint too gloomy a picture because, in good years, with plenty of sunshine, Scotland can grow good crops. In 1959 and 1960 the average in the Cupar factory was over 15 tons an acre. That was the figure for both years. That underlines the fact that it is essential, after the succession of six poor years, that something should be done now to make certain that we get the factory back on a production basis, making money. We must delay no longer.
I am reinforced in this view because in the recent Price Review the Government introduced the idea of grants towards the growing of a break crop. This is because it has been recognised by the Government and the National Farmers' Union and by agricultural scientists that, particularly in those areas where grain is grown continually, there is need for a break crop. Sugar beet is grown in Scotland in areas where grain is grown, so that the need for a break crop exists in sugar beet areas. If there is such a need, therefore, surely there should be encouragement of beet growing—certainly as we are to encourage the growing of beans. In the Price Review this was said to be only the first step. It was said that consultations would take place with the N.F.U. to see which other break crops should be encouraged. Surely there is a need to make certain that steps are taken now to see that the break crop is continued.
I know that in the past much argument has passed between the two sides of the House as to the exact time at which the change in contract is made. This goes back to 1963 when the free-on-rail contract, worth about £1 a ton to growers, was cancelled. The present arrangement of 3d. a ton-mile and 5s. 6d. for loading is probably worth about 13s. a ton to growers. Of this 13s. the British Sugar Corporation pays 10s. 6d. and the Government pay 2s. 6d. Obviously that is not enough because the average return to growers in Scotland has been £74. The cost has been about £70. The latter varies between farms, but it means that only people over the average are making a reasonable profit.
What should the Secretary of State do? It is essential that he should not

wait for the next Price Review but should call together in the very immediate future the N.F.U. and the Corporation. A good time is that of the spring demonstrations, when the Corporation is able to show the cultivation work which is being done. The Secretary of State should call together the National Farmers' Union and the British Sugar Corporation to see what can be done to get the Cupar factory back on a productive level. The only way to do that is by giving a differential price for beet growing in Scotland. I do not claim that it should be given for ever, but it should be given at least over the next two years. Nor is this a particularly new proposal. Differentials are paid for potatoes under the Potato Marketing Board, with different prices between England and Scotland, and by the Milk Marketing Board. There are also the hill cow and ewe subsidies.
May I suggest why this should be done? New methods are coming along, including the use of monogerm seeds, which cut down the cost of growing, and mechanical thinning. These are new methods which in the near future will cut costs and probably make beet growing more profitable. But unless something is done now to make it more profitable. the factory will fade away and it will then be too late to help. When we have to get back to production it will cost three times as much money to start all over again.
As an example of what might be done, I suggest that if the Government do not feel able to pay all the money themselves, then it might be done out of the Price Review. For instance, in the last Price Review an award of 2s. 6d. was given. If 2s. had been applied over the United Kingdom, the 6d. could have been applied especially to Scotland, by agreement with the National Farmers' Union. This 6d., on the total United Kingdom harvesting of 6½ million tons of sugar beet, would have produced £162,000. If we take the Cupar factory at 15,000 acres and at 11 tons an acre, this would produce 165,000 tons of beet. Therefore with £162,000 we should have £1 a ton to be paid by giving the 2s to the United Kingdom as a whole and the extra 6d. entirely to Scotland.
I know that there are factories elsewhere, particularly in the West of England, which are not filling their quota,


and this system could be valuable, not only for the Cupar factory, but for one or two of the English factories as well. What this comes down to is that for the lack of something like £150,000 over the next two years, the jobs of 200 to 300 people, and the ancillary employment and everything that goes with it can be lost. I am certain that in the interest of agriculture and employment it is essential that action should be taken now, and I hope that the Minister can give us that assurance tonight.

11.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) for raising this question. All of us would agree that this is one of the sensitive points in Scottish agriculture, and all the more sensitive because it is not only an economic question, as he said, but because it is a matter of local employment. I recognise that he speaks in a twofold capacity, not only as a keen agriculturalist, with special knowledge of the sugar beet industry, but also as a Member concerned with employment at Cupar. One recognises, too, as he stressed, that there is the tourist industry, but basically it is the sugar factory which is the key industry in the town.
Therefore a great deal of thought and attention must be paid to this question. It might be useful if I looked at some of the points which we have in common. First of all, I recognise that sugar beet is valuable from an agricultural point of view. The hon. Gentleman is correct to stress its importance as a break crop, and he could have gone further and shown that in the Price Review there was an emphasis on this question of the break crop, which went beyond picking out certain crops. There was this concept of good husbandry. Maybe in Scotland we operate already in terms of good husbandry, and do not need this encouragement, but we recognise that good farming methods north of the Border are being rewarded. Sugar beet is a good break crop. I am not sure how far I would want to get involved with the hon. Member as to whether this should be the only concept of a break crop. Certainly it is not unique. It is true that it is a very important one. Even at that, it would still remain the farmer's task to decide,

looking at the kind of economics that have been examined, whether this is the kind of break crop he will be going in for.

Mr. Anthony Stoddart: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman if he would assure us that his mind is open to the possibility of attempting to have sugar beet regarded as a break crop in Scotland for grant purposes? It might be a way of getting round what I readily admit is a difficult problem,

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Member knows me well enough to recognise that my mind is open to every valuable suggestion, no matter from which side of the House it comes. On the other hand, at five minutes to 12 o'clock, he will not expect me to enunciate any new or dramatic form of policy.
The hon. Member, talking of research, which has featured in the discussion said on 1st March:
Is enough attention being paid to the conditions under which sugar beet is grown in the northern part of the country? Why are all the yields lower there? Is it because the varieties grown in the south are not suitable in the north? Is it because we do not have the number of hours of sunshine that, generally speaking, the south has? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1St March. 1967; c. 455, vol. 742.]
I agree with him. Research on the monogerm may help us to solve what has been the basic agricultural problem of why the yield in Scotland in general has been very much inferior to that in the south.
The suggestion which the hon. Gentleman put forward for dealing with this problem was, as always, the question of the price structure. The hon. Gentleman's solution has the virtue of simplicity, that of taking a large acreage in the south, removing a part of the increase of 2s. 6d. given in the Price Review, say 6d., and giving this to the area of Cupar and thereby solving all our problems. This could be a solution, and one which could be applied to almost any other industry in Britain, even to coal mining. One of the problems of a panacea is that if one steps in in one way, when will we apply it in another?

Sir J. Gilmour: It is true, is it not, that in agriculture we have a differential price for certain products to make up for difficult circumstances, and therefore this


should be looked at in that context and not in the other one?

Mr. Buchan: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument for a price differentiation. He used as examples milk, potatoes, hill cows, and so on, but if he examines the hill cow subsidy, or the sheep subsidy, he will realise that they are exceptions which we have not tried to emphasise too much in the case, of options. There is no differentiation for the regions as such in the Price Review, but differentiation takes place, not in the form of the Annual Price Review, but in another form, and on a considerable scale. I think that the hon. Gentleman might have given it more credit.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the drop in yield in about 1964. There was another factor there, and that was the cut in the transport subvention. The acreage was almost halved in the course of two years. The hon. Gentleman quoted the figures. It dropped to below the 7,000 acre mark. In an attempt to deal with this situation, which was in a sense inherited, we have once more increased the transport subvention. It may not be written into the Price Review, but it is a considerable differentiation in costs towards sugar beet.
In England the average transport subvention is about 1½d. To be precise, I think it is 1·6d. If one considers a fairly analogous factory with similar difficulties in England, say the Kidderminster factory, about which the hon. Gentleman knows more than I do, one sees that the transport subvention is about 4s. compared with our 13s. We are therefore giving a considerable subvention, a considerable differentiation in the price structure, whether it is written into the Price Review or not. We are at least taking this step, but I admit that we are not taking the dramatic step of altering the price structure on a huge scale.
Despite what I said about research, despite the fact that the 2s. 6d. may be of some value, despite what I have said about the transport subvention, I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxieties. For obvious reasons we should take pleasure from the fact that in December the British Sugar Corporation gave certain guarantees. The Corporation referred to the acreage and promised to take up to 16,000 acres per year up to 1969 if

this acreage can be grown. The task therefore falls on the farmers to grow this crop.
The 2s. 6d. addition has been made, the 13s. subvention remains, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his fellow farmers, and the Corporation too, will say, "Let this thing ride and see what comes out of it, and what amount of increased acreage should be used". At the same time I hope that there will be a break through in research into sugar beet. I do not want to be too optimistic about the way things are going. One would hope that we will get that kind of response from farmers, because only that kind of response will solve the problem that the hon. Member has described.
As to the price structure, the Government are certainly doing all that is reasonable. I know that the date this year has come, perhaps, a bit late. The figure was as the hon. Member has said. The present contractual figure is, I think, about 6,800 acres, so that I agree that, so far, we have seen very little change.

Sir J. Gilmour: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that if we wait until the next Price Review, whether it is in February or March, it will be too late? By and large, farmers make up their cropping programmes at least by early in the New Year. If we wait until the next Price Review, irrespective of what happens about whether we go into the Common Market, where beet prices are higher, it will be too late. It should he done between now and the autumn.

Mr. Buchan: I note the point. It is always difficult to take a decision which will affect an Annual Price Review before one comes to the Price Review. I would have hoped that the hon. Member might wait to see what kind of effect the additional 2s. 6d. would have on the situation and, for that matter, additional speculation about the possible effects of the Common Market. It has, however, happened quickly this time.
I agree that the contractual situation has not improved. I hope that the right kind of encouragement will he given to farmers by people like the hon. Member, with his well-known interest in the subject, because of the value of sugar beet


as a break crop and because we are continuing the transport subvention. It would seem that we should let the situation ride and see what kind of confidence can be restored among beet growers.
The most important aspect of that confidence was the statement by the British Sugar Corporation that it would take that increased acreage. There will be no question of this being lost. Does the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) wish to intervene? Because of the well-known eagerness with which the hon. Member faces me, I was sure that we would get a devastating comment on sugar beet from that quarter also.
The position, therefore, is as the hon. Member for Fife, East has stated. We have the problems of agriculture and, in agriculture of a break crop, the Annual Price Review, research, which, one hopes, will improve the situation, and, along with that, the ancillary question of employment. It is true, as the hon. Member has said, that if one were to spend the £150,000 by using one section of the Annual Price Review—a reduction in the subvention—and put it all into one section of the industry, that would of itself solve the problem and keep employment going. That is not a particularly good argument for hon. Members opposite to use. It is not the kind of argument with which to advocate the development of a thriving agricultural economy. The task is really to improve beet production.
Is the hon. Member suggesting that we should let the situation ride at the expense, as it were, of efficient husbandry and efficient farming? I hope not. If he is, it is a new concept of economics from hon. Members opposite.

Sir J. Gilmour: No. What, I hope, I stressed was that if this could be done for a couple of years to bridge the gap—because monogerm seed has been used only this year, mechanical thinning is just developing and there is the big question mark of the Common Market—and to get the factory going at full production, the money which would be spent would be saved by the British Sugar Corporation. All that is being done by running the Cupar factory at half cock is to pour money down the drain.

Mr. Buchan: I recognise the problem. I would have thought that the best thing to do for two years would be to see what difference the encouragement which we have given by the maintenance of the transport subvention, which started only in 1966, makes.

Sir J. Gilmour: Too late.

Mr. Buchan: That may well he cheaper, besides which, if necessary, sugar beet can be brought up, as it is being brought, from the northern areas to Cupar to keep the factory there going.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I do not think that there is much need to wait to see the result of the 2s. 6d. One knows precisely what this will mean. It will mean 2s. 6d. a ton on 11 tons an acre, which is £1 7s. 6d. an acre, and that is not enough.

Mr. Buchan: That is a bit rich. Hon. Gentlemen opposite need only look at the figures of the decline in acreage. The decline can easily be seen. In 1962 it was 15,779 tons; in 1963, 14,708 tons; and in 1964, 10,761 tons. That was due not merely to the low yield and terrible winter. After all, there is no guarantee that next year's winter will be bad. It is, therefore, not just a problem of the weather.
Should we expect the Tories to control agriculture in the way that they controlled the economy—by some sort of lottery? There is a clear economic reason for the drop in acreage. The simple reason is that the Tories cut the transport subvention. The real problem must be faced and I am glad to see the hon. Member for Fife, East and his "beet group" here tonight to face it.
We are suggesting that time should be given so that the sensible and practical method we have proposed for dealing with the problem may be allowed to work. The Government accept that there is a problem of differentiation. We agree that we cannot expect this factory to cope with a lower yield. Unlike hon. Gentlemen opposite, we are facing up to the difficulties, including the climatic problems of the area, and we particularly appreciate the transport difficulties. Let us deal with the matter in a sensible way by the increase in the transport subvention.
No hon. Gentleman opposite can be really sure what will happen in connection with the Common Market. It may or may not benefit the sugar beet industry. We are prepared to say that we are not so sure what will happen, particularly since many discussions must take place, including the many international matters that must be taken into consideration.
It should also be remembered that our Price Review this year and the 2s. 6d. are not the only ways of helping those areas which are in a bad way. Because of the general support needed for sugar, we stated in the Price Review White Paper:
The objective under the selective expansion programme is that home production of sugar should supply part of any increasing demand within the existing contract acreage and factory capacity and without raising international problems. The total contract acreage is still being fully taken up; but the acreage contracted for in some areas has been falling, with the result that some factories have difficulty in obtaining their requirements of sugar beet".
It was, therefore, not only a question of dealing with the difficult areas, and costs, but of continuing to provide the general justice which the Labour Party, from the time of Tom Williams onwards, has tried to give to agriculture. We are endeavouring to provide some generous and intelligent fairness to the sugar beet industry.
But there are particular problems and we have dealt with those by way of the transport subvention. This being so, I cannot understand the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I accept their

anxiety and I have gone out of my way to explain the position of the Cupar factory. This is really a matter affecting the whole development of the Scottish economy, which for 13 years the Tories ignored. In allowing a distortion of the British economy to take place, they left this area with one factory—and that based on an agricultural product on which they were prepared to slash the transport subvention, even though they knew the consequences that that would have on the factory.
I recognise the work that the hon. Member for Fife, East has done on behalf of his constituents, but he cannot shake off the shadow of his party. That is his problem. We, on the other hand, have faced, honestly and directly, the difficulties that exist and I believe that the methods we have adopted may help. I cannot guarantee that they will—and I assure the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire that he has no need to get agitated. I intend—

Mr. Ian MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman is spinning out a complacent speech to the House and—

The Question having been proposed after half-past Nine o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock.